From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 2CECA138334 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:50:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DB2F1E09BA; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:50:24 +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 903BDE0993 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A70434D972 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Revisiting GLEP 81 (acct-*) policies (reviews, cross-distro syncing) To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <84a435bffe460efd2620ceec0c0405fa18a7937b.camel@gentoo.org> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <79c81a90-af55-5661-307d-e4143e99a644@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:50:21 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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 In-Reply-To: <84a435bffe460efd2620ceec0c0405fa18a7937b.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 71d9bc6e-7e3d-40d8-b018-4e8c020f0b5a X-Archives-Hash: c16da11c8281d9ae121da6319c53c1f6 On 12/9/19 3:17 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > 2. Mailing list reviews don't serve their original purpose. > > The original purpose of mailing list reviews was to verify that > the developers use new packages correctly. For example, Michael > Orlitzky has found a lot of unnecessary home directories specified. > Of course, that works only if people submit *ebuilds* for review. > > However, at some points developers arbitrarily decided to send only > numbers for review. This defeats the purpose of the review in the first > place. > For users like "git" and "ntp" that are shared by multiple packages, I think the mailing list review is still helpful. We fixed big problems with those two that only came to light during review. If somebody else requests a UID for "your" user, that gives you a chance to review their acct-user ebuild and make sure that it's compatible with your package. For esoteric packages with a dedicated user, though, you're probably right. The main benefit of the mailing list posts so far is that they let me track down pull requests and suggest that people ignore the example in the devmanual. If we can remove ACCT_USER_SHELL=/usr/bin/foo ACCT_USER_HOME=/var/lib/foo ACCT_USER_HOME_OWNER=foo:bar ACCT_USER_HOME_PERMS=0775 from [1], that would really help people guess the right thing to do the first time around. [1] https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/users-and-groups/index.html