I'm going to reply to Julien first, then to Michael. On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:35:14 +0000, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > I agree this should be fixed in base-files. Bugs should be fixed where they are. If base-files, or any other package, essential or not, can't make a simple chown root:root, then it is a bug in whatever package was responsible for making sure that the root user exist in a Debian system, base-passwd and debootstrap in this case. This is regardless the fact that base-files could do things differently so that this bug remains "hidden" a few more months or a few more years. I am investigating the last option right now, but not as a way to fix bugs in debootstrap (which I believe they should be fixed anyway), but as a way to avoid our users to find this problem. BTW: At least once in the past I have made little changes to base-files to fix problems that happen when using debootstrap. I'm not opposed to that. See for example, changes in base-files 3.0.1 (yes, 12 years ago). But it will not be anything like adding a Depends on base-passwd. That would be a hack. > > chown: invalid user: 'root:root' > > Can't base-files call chown with 0:0 instead of root:root to sidestep > this entirely? It's a little bit more complex than that. Sometimes it's root:root, sometimes is root:staff and sometimes is root:mail. See base-files postinst for details. This has worked for ages, and it should continue to work, because base-passwd is essential. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1410271044240.29...@cantor.unex.es
