cardoe at gentoo
Nov 15, 2009, 8:50 PM
Post #4 of 4
(179 views)
Permalink
|
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2 [at] gentoo> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> > GLEP 27 [1] seems pretty stagnant and I'm planning on giving it a bit
>> > of a refresh and actually implementing it. Now before I do this I'm
>> > not in love with the format in tree but I haven't decided on a format
>> > exactly in my head. So that being said, I'm sending this out looking
>> > for some opinions or ideas for my new GLEP. One of the obvious things
>> > I'll cover is all the ambiguity of the GLEP with regard to the data
>> > inside each of the files.
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html
>> One idea worth considering is making users just ebuilds with a
>> supporting eclass.
> While I'm hugely in favour of having consistent UID/GIDs with no
> conflicts over all Gentoo machines, I feel one of the reasons that the
> GLEP failed was that users required by ebuilds changed over ebuild
> versions, and the GLEP didn't seem to handle that well.
>
> Cases I've seen in the tree:
> - username change (slocate -> locate)
> - homedir change
> - shell change
>
Which would seem to mean that Petteri's suggestion would work better
since that would allow us to version/upgrade user/group data.
--
Doug Goldstein
|
signature.asc
