On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:16:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:23:23AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:37:03AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > So e2fsprogs which is "Essential: yes" depends on libuuid1, so > > libuuid1 is effectively "Essential: yes", right? So if I add a > > dependency on passwd, it will effectively make passwd "Essential: > > yes", as well, and according to policy I should bring it up for > > comment on debian-policy. So, I am doing so now. > > My mail headers disagree. :) Is this really meant to be on debian-policy > rather than debian-devel? > > > Any objections if I add a dependency on passwd for libuuid1? The > > aternative would be to roll-my-own useradd/adduser functionality, but that > > would be a real PITA....
AFAICS libuuid1 just needs groupadd/useradd to create a user and group 'libuuid'. Since libuuid1 is essential, every system will end up with a libuuid user/group, so why not just add it to base-passwd instead of creating it dynamically ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
