[Fedora-packaging] Re: Second user/group handling draft

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Fri May 11 11:01:33 UTC 2007

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:37:57PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Side note: Who makes sure stuff gets enforced? FESCO and EPEL SIG?

Yes. The fpc is just the legislative and fesco is the judicial and
executive with veto rights over the legislative's outcome. ;)

> It generally seems to me hat some of the package guideline changes
> don't get applied to existing packages (or only the devel branch)
> because no one enforces them. The FPC, FESCO and EPEL SIG probably
> need to work something out together to improve that in the
> future. Especially for EPEL due to it's long life-time things might
> get complicated if we enforce new rules to existing packages for
> released branches.
> But that's a different discussion we probably should not open here and now.

I agree, the fpc or the packaging discussion is less suited on topics
about hunting down bad & lazy packagers. FWIW until now it was a
cooperative work of the contributors, I hope it doesn't need to change
in the future. But whatever punishment methods against lazyness will
be envised they would not appear in the guidelines ;)

> >> Just wondering: Should we have some kind of "user/gid registry" in the
> >> wiki to track packages that create users/groups?
> > Maybe, but this would require the maintainer of "setup" to make
> > painfully sure wiki and "setup" are always in sync. The moment this
> > deviates we're in trouble, so if the maintainer(s) of setup can't
> > commit to simultaneous edits of "setup" and wiki contents, we should
> > better keep "setup" as the only authoritative source. Which can be
> > easily checked from the cvs viewer online I guess, so packagers will
> > be able to check rawhide allocation immediately.
> Agreed. But sysadmins need to have a list of all possible users accounts
> somewhere afaics, otherwise it will be hard for them to modify setup (or
> am I missing something?). Maybe we could maintain such a list somewhere
> inside the setup rpm or it's cvs?

The list *is* part of "setup": passwd and group are *the*
authoritative source and uidgid is a documented registry which already
has to be manually maintained. So a wiki entry would make three
different manually to maintain master lists.

Unfortunately "setup" contents in cvs are "tarball-protected", but you
could ask the maintainer(s) (officially Phil, but Bill is the uid/gid
man) to keep these 20 files out of the tarball for the sake of online
viewing of the latest bits. It would also make it easier for
customizing "setup".
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070511/91ab63d1/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list