>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > As far as I can see, this GLEP predates EAPI and does not meet > modern standards. It needs to be updated or killed with fire.
> For a start, relation to EAPI needs to be defined. This will likely > require both profiles and ebuilds to use the new EAPI. Certainly this is true for ebuilds. We could introduce EUSERS and EGROUPS variables as well as FEATURES=noautoaccts in EAPI 7. I'd rather avoid bumping all profiles to EAPI 7, though. From a pragmatic point of view, I think nothing bad would happen if we would add user and group definition files to an existing (EAPI 5) profile, as old package managers would simple ignore these files. > Also, the contents of 'backwards compatibility' section are > unacceptable. But that's probably going to be covered by EAPI. > The spec itself is hard to follow, though the idea seems simple. > It makes me wonder if we aren't missing something important there. The spec seems incomplete. I cannot find a description of the user and group files' format. (But in fact, there is a standard format which suggests itself, namely that of the passwd(5) and group(5) files.) Also having whole directory trees seems wasteful and doesn't fit so well into the existing design of profiles. It might be simpler to put "user" (or "passwd") and "group" files directly in the profile. (If directories are really needed, we could use the scheme foreseen in [1] for package.* and use.* files.) Also a mechanism how a subprofile could undefine a user or group defined in its parent seems to be missing. Ulrich [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/282296
pgpHMWakH2hBF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
