On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 12:17:44 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/19610 > > On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 11:34:37 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Am 14.05.21 um 11:17 schrieb Guillem Jover: > > > The version in experimental introduced a new system group called sgx > > > which has an overly generic name with the potential to collide with > > > user and group names, say their initials. Could it be rename to use > > > the system name convention of prefixing it with «_»? > > > > I fear, that unfortunately this ship has sailed when it comes to naming > > conventions. While I like the "_" prefix (e.g. much better then Debian-), > > it's unfortunately not commonly used. > > None of the groups defined in /usr/lib/sysusers.d/basic.conf use it. > > "sgx" is supposed to be used in the same way as "audio", "video", "kmem", > > "render" afaiu, none of those use the "_" prefix. > > Right, I checked the other instances and they seemed somewhat more scoped > than sgx. Even thought it would indeed be nice to use a consistent > namespacing there, but… > > > That said, you might try to raise this upstream. > > I won't, I already had my share of confrontation on this issue, see > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/18944 > > So I'm probably not the best person to bring this up again. > > Hmm, ok, I've submitted a report upstream, but have no high hopes of > that being accepted.
Ok, that was fast, upstream already closed this as wontfix… :( > On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 11:40:12 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Am 14.05.21 um 11:34 schrieb Michael Biebl: > > > "sgx" is supposed to be used in the same way as "audio", "video", > > > "kmem", "render" afaiu, none of those use the "_" prefix. > > > > Personally, I don't see the nee for this "sgx" group, tbh, as it looks to be > > very use case specific and will require explicit configuration anyway. > > But if the point is, to provide a "well known" group that other, 3rd party > > software can use, then renaming it kinda defeats the point and I'd rather > > revert this upstream change then renaming the group. > > In the Debian context either a renamed group or a removed group would > do for me. But this would still be a problem with upstream, and might > mean projects start to rely on this name given that systemd upstream > defines it, and might end up hardcoding it anyway in their code. :/ Thanks, Guillem
