On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:32:21PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > We could add special behaviour to adduser to unlock the account > if it already exists when run in the postinst.
Yes, that would be the way to go for adduser --system > However, most postinsts wrap the call to adduser with a check for > whether the account already exists, so it would not be called > without an update to every preinst employing this strategy. Yes, packages having used that approached are buggy in the first place. > It would also alter the existing behaviour of adduser, which is to > return nonzero if the user already exists, which could cause > breakage. NACK, adduser --system does return zero if the user already exists and its parameters are sufficiently similiar to the parameters requested by the maintainer script. > I dislike the fact that the behaviour of adduser and deluser would, > in effect, /not/ add or delete users as intended, which is rather > counter-intuitive. Providing that we have consensus on a recommended > strategy for locking and unlocking accounts which can go into policy, > I think all we need are examples for how maintainer scripts are > expected to handle account creation and locking/unlocking. NACK, don't put the same logic into a hundred maintainer scripts where they'll have two hundred different bugs. Put the logic into a central place where bugs can be handled centrally. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120701095539.gb7...@torres.zugschlus.de
