Hi Richard, > On Mon, 2024-09-16 at 19:38 +0000, Jonas Mark (BT-FS/ENG1-Mue) wrote: > > I am wondering whether it would be reasonable to ask for backporting > > of the fix for inter-recipe useradd dependencies to Kirkstone? > > > > I am referring to the fix for bug #13419 which was fixed on > Scarthgap. > > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugz > > > illa.yoctoproject.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D13419&data=05%7C02%7CMark. > > > Jonas%40de.bosch.com%7Cf4f038e950f74975cbaa08dcd68ce354%7C0ae51e1907c8 > > > 4e4bbb6d648ee58410f4%7C0%7C0%7C638621147799841791%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > > > b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D > > > %7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WFksvlULalWked50wkL8hCwnxWSKkT432fh1Zh2pkp0%3D&res > > erved=0 > > > > I understand that the backporting would involve the addition of > > USERADD_DEPENDS to useradd.bbclass as well a fix to bitbake. > > > > My colleague Ricardo and I are visiting the OSSEU this week in case > > somebody would like to discuss this in person. > > The changes to bitbake were complex and relied on previous work. > Whether that work was even present in the kirkstone version of bitbake, > I'm not sure. > > I've be very nervous about trying to backport that kind of change to a > release as far through the LTS cycle as kirkstone is, particularly as > it changes behaviour. > > You didn't mention whether you had tested those fixes against > kirkstone? Even if so, I'd still probably be nervous about making > changes like this as people might be relying on the existing behaviour > or have their own workarounds.
Thank you very much for your detailed answer. We started backporting the fixes. And then we got overwhelmed by the git history of bitbake. We also came to the conclusion that we could not guarantee that there is no previous work required for the backporting. That's when we decided to ask the experts. So we agree with you that weighing risk against gain it should not be backported to Kirkstone. Most likely we'll implement Alexander's proposed workaround. That is, (redundantly) create the necessary groups in all recipes adding users requiring these groups. It should be easy to get rid of that again once we update to Scarthgap and add the ADDUSER_DEPENDS instead. Cheers, Mark
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#204616): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/204616 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108488497/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
