On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 14:08 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
My main problem with recent changes to filesystem package is that there is no clear benefits of using sysusers to do the job. Can anyone enlighten me, or is it a change for the sake of change?
- We move the definition of users/groups from 5 redundant files (4 data and 1 script) to 1 clean configuration file.That make the stuff easier to understand and manage, so it's a benefits to me.- That make users/groups management coherent between our packages. Filesystem is no more a special case.- Emptying the passwd, shadow, group and gshadow will prevent future pacdiff on these files. Whenever it happened, it was annoying for everyone for nothing.- This is a step forward to have an Arch working with a transient /etc, as all required users/groups will be created by systemd-sysusers. I didn't find a good reason to refuse to implement this BR and with hindsight it's a smart move.Ok, that's not a revolution, but « a change for the sake of change»? You are harsh!
From top of my head, it caused issues with pacstrapping with testing, dependency cycle, OpenSSH and cups, and I'm certain I missed something. You are mixing issues from several changes in filesystem and not related systemd-sysusers.So far the solutions looks good to me. Do you want I sum them up?Is there one in particular issue you want to discuss outside the bug report? If the gain is ditching few lines of bash from install scriplet, we have wrong priorities… What was the gain to change ${CFLAGS} into $CFLAGS to our master plan to control the universe?Seriously, what is the loss to move to systemd-sysusers? That a step forward.I don't get why your are not happy that I prioritized this over swimming with ponies.
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer