On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 19:34 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:41AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:44 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and > > > > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their > > > > own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or > > > > otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd. Two > > > > examples of this are bug #113298 and bug #94745. By putting them in > > > > their own eclass, we can keep from adding shadow to DEPEND in eutils, > > > > while still putting the dependency in the eclass that uses it. > > > > > > i think i suggested this somewhere before, but why dont we just add > > > shadow to packages.build ... then it'll be in stage[123] and the DEPEND > > > will be a moot point > > > > That doesn't solve the issue. > > of course it does ... putting a package in packages.build means it will > be in all stages which means no package (like cronbase) will ever fail > again because the useradd binaries will always exist
I'm looking to minimize what is in a stage1 tarball, not increase it. I would much prefer that we instead had a proper dependency tree, than hacking around it. Applications that need to add users on Linux *should* DEPEND on shadow. They should not rely on it being already present. Plus, your solution does not work retroactively to repair issues with the 2005.0, 2005.1, or 2005.1-r1 stages, while mine does. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
