On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:18:23 +0200 David Seifert wrote: > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 08:59 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:32:56 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 09:53 -0400, Brian Evans wrote: > > > > On 6/9/2019 7:39 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > +Tracking of user/group usage is done through dependencies. As > > > > > long > > > > > +as any installed package depends on a specific user/group > > > > > package, > > > > > +the respective user/group is assumed to be used. If no > > > > > package > > > > > +requiring the specific user/group is left, the package manager > > > > > +automatically prunes the package clearly indicating it is no > > > > > longer > > > > > +used. > > > > > > > > You cannot know when a name is "no longer used". An > > > > administrator could > > > > have adopted a username for other purposes. > > > > > > That's why we don't remove the actual user/group. However, this is > > > a valuable information to the administrator that no package is > > > using > > > the user/group in question. > > > > So how do you propose to clean them up? Or let user systems trash > > with unused uids/gids? The GLEP 81 only mensions some possible > > tooling for cleanup. Is there an implementation available? I don't > > see it within proposed patch sets. > > > > This GLEP should not be accepted unless all necessary tools are > > available including a cleanup tool. > > > > Best regards, > > Andrew Savchenko > > Strongly disagree: > > 1) User systems are already getting trashed. And apparently it's not a > critical thing that prevents users from using Gentoo in practice. > 2) A cleanup tool at best will only tell you which files you need to > check, randomly deleting files with orphaned uids/gids is not a good > idea.
What will happen when some acct-*/* package will be unmerged? Will uid/gid record and/or its files be deteleted? > 3) This proposal strictly increases the quality of Gentoo. Don't let > perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that the problem isn't > solved to 100% doesn't mean that a solution that gets us there 85% > should be rejected. > > Strongly vote +1 to merge this now. > > Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpDwJ3IynjJd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
