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 28ADB1382C5 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 570E8E09D0; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 23FC6E09CA for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <85a7ff62c353e13e2c2c8c93b7c90282d6d1f045.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] acct-user.eclass: don't modify existing user by default From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 17:14:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20210104013558.20072-1-whissi@gentoo.org> <809f727af51f7dcd9aec97a800c0ecd89f60eaa6.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.2 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 03c3a59f-0407-493d-8521-af615cffbe02 X-Archives-Hash: cc5af1436147416556eb287a58691c02 On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 11:10 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 4:23 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 02:35 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > > Modifying an existing user is a bad default and makes Gentoo > > > special because it is common for system administrators to make > > > modifications to user (i.e. putting an user into another service's > > > group to allow that user to access service in question) and it > > > would be unexpected to see these changes reverted during normal > > > world upgrade (which could break services). > > > > Not modifying an existing user is a horrible default that has already > > bricked one system (by removing /dev/null). So, over my dead commit > > access. > > As the eclass maintainer, would you be willing to merge a similar > patch that enables user modifications by default, but provides > sysadmins a way to disable it? Yes, I don't mind an option, as long as it spews a big fat ewarn that the user loses the right to support. However, that's still not the right solution to the immediate problem, and I'm currently working on a better patch, so I'd prefer if you waited with that to avoid merge conflicts. -- Best regards, Michał Górny