Hi, On 2021-01-04 19:07, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
We could implement this with something like an /etc/users.d directory that would be populated with entries by either the admin or package manager with CONFIG_PROTECT enabled. Then the system database would be updated by running something like "users-update" (cf. env-update). The essential problem that we need to work around is that e.g. /etc/passwd is "owned" by multiple system packages.I think this would accomplish what you and Robin are talking about, but it wouldn't solve whissi's problem since it's still a Gentoo-specific solution.
If you really want to spend so much time on this, feel free to implement something like this. From my point of view this is wasted time. I really have no words for anyone believing that there must be a way to deal with user config. This is a no go for me and most people in my bubble. Once you have created something, it's user data. If you want to make changes, tell the user about it but never ever mess with user configs. History is full of examples when messing with user configs caused real harm.
For example there is a reason why we don't edit /etc files. Instead have CONFIG_PROTECT and are only providing helpers to update config.
Do I really need to explain what can go wrong when you suddenly change /home? What will happen to your cron jobs for example?
What will happen when you make changes to groups and reboot?But as said, if you want to spend so much time on this and create a complicated solution which will be adding a lot of complexity which I think isn't worth it, *I* could live with it. It's the same like dealing with CONFIG_PROTECT already.
People like me could just ignore changed users if changes won't go live until you run said users-update command or make use of INSTALL_MASK.
-- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
