Hello Balint Reczey, On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 06:29:21PM +0100, Balint Reczey wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:45:40 +0200 Andreas Henriksson <andr...@fatal.se> > wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:01:56AM +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > ATM, on debian, login, su, ... are provided by the shadow package. > > > > Currently we use the --disable-login --disable-nologin and > > --disable-su configure flags when building util-linux in Debian > > because these are provided by the "login" package. > > > > We also use --disable-chfn-chsh as that's provided by the "passwd" > > package. > > > > Both "login" and "passwd" are built from src:shadow. [...] > I have just stepped up as a new shadow maintainer and I would support > the switch to the more widely used variants.
Awesome both that you're stepping up a a new maintainer and that you're interested in discussing this topic. I have to confess that I'm quite ignorant about login tools. Please educate me. ;) If you do support moving to util-linux tools, then are you looking to get rid of src:shadow completely as a long-term plan or how do you view what role it'll play in the future? Just yesterday I discussed about various bit being part of a debootstrap --variant=minbase in Debian (smallest possible debootstrappable system) and login came up as something questionable for the smallest possible system (think init-less container). The explanation that was mentioned was that login package shipped 'su'. Maybe we should split up this discussion in multiple tiers, where tier1 could be just about u-l taking over su and allowing login package to become non-essential and priority important? The tier2 discussion could be about other login package utils like login, nologin, newgrp. Note that u-l does not provide replacement tools for faillog, lastlog, sg. How do we handle these? Are they still relevant? The tier3 discussion might be about some passwd tools, for example these are also provided by u-l: chfn, chsh. (Note: there are many other tools in src:shadow passwd package that are not part of u-l.) Maybe after that we could consider if Priority: required is the correct one for passwd package (required means it's part of --variant=minbase where I think it's questionable if it's always needed. Also libuuid1 currently depending on passwd will need to be revisited. We should be able to drop the old migration code from libuuid1 maintainer scripts and drop the dependency.) What do you think about the specific tools and packages? Which ones specifically would you like to see provided by util-linux instead (or if others which one?) and why? (Goes without saying, but ofcourse any of these plans are at this point targeted for Buster development cycle.) [...] > Maybe discussing the bigger picture on > pkg-auth-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org would help the planning. Sure, added to CC for now. Lets drop the bug report if we drift too far off-topic for it. > > > > > Also someone needs to make sure the different implementation of the > > tools are actually 100% compatible or what migrations we need to handle > > on package upgrades. > > > > Please note that while "login" is Essential: yes, the "passwd" package > > is not. Things to keep in mind when expanding util-linux is that > > all tools then become Essential: yes which I think is unfortunate as > > we should strive to keep the essential set as small as possible. > > Rebootstrapping [1] already covers util-linux thus I think building > login from util-linux would not cause big problems. > > Cheers, > Balint > > [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/helmutg/rebootstrap.git/ Regards, Andreas Henriksson
