From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-92561-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F216C138359
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed,  9 Sep 2020 09:37:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17E14E0893;
	Wed,  9 Sep 2020 09:37:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6045E07FA
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  9 Sep 2020 09:37:08 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 11:36:59 +0200
From: Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] acct-group.eclass: declare the
 missing dependency on shadow
Message-ID: <20200909113659.45ca18ed@pepito>
In-Reply-To: <CAEvUa7kjGK-Ug1LGWpGsSE3zaDK4UhQCJP+kf=0yFYcKiM==7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874ko8w9ap.fsf@gmail.com>
	<CAEvUa7kjGK-Ug1LGWpGsSE3zaDK4UhQCJP+kf=0yFYcKiM==7w@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Gentoo
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: ee159bee-375c-4fb4-a53a-4f51dfaa4e50
X-Archives-Hash: 5270d24a182243ffad8e6d3e1bf48ba7

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:54:14 -0400
David Michael <fedora.dm0@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This fix might not be so straightforward.  A configuration I tested
> hit a dependency loop with shadow -> pambase -> systemd -> a bunch of
> groups -> shadow.  It is possible to bootstrap around by emerging
> shadow with no USE flags first, but I don't know how acceptable it is
> to introduce new dep loops like this.


what happens without your change ?

my understanding is that this will be merged in that order:

1. a bunch of groups
2. systemd
3. pambase
4. shadow


in which case, the groups from 1. will fail if shadow is not present at
that point


PS: we have the 'build' useflag for this when building stage1's