[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#767999: debootstrap/base-passwd: #767999 and #766459 should really be fixed in base-passwd


On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 22:44:40 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:06:07PM +0000, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> > 1. Determine whether base-passwd is in line with policy on providing its
> > functionality as an "essential" package.
> >   A) If it is, then debootstrap is buggy.
> Even if it somehow is, there's a practical problem: it's impossible to
> deploy a fix to a significant part of users.

Yes, I can see that. But determining the package at fault would nevertheless
help to see what the best fix is in the long run.

> >   B) If base-passwd violates policy, then base-passwd is buggy.
> I say it is, but since the only consumer that matters is base-files, it
> might be safer to change the latter.

Well, as Santiago has said in many ways, the necessary changes to base-files
could be painful as well. I'd rather see it the other way: if base-passwd were
changed, it might as well be possible to simplify debootstrap further as it
could be the case that the present dpkg -i call specific to base-files and
base-passwd would no longer be necessary, i.e., they could just be installed in
arbitrary sequence with the other essential packages.

> > My point of view is that base-passwd should be changed, and thanks to
> > suggestions from Tollef last night the attached patch should actually achieve
> > this. The idea simply is to sort out creating /etc/passwd and /etc/group in
> > preinst already, so that these files will be present once the package reaches
> > the state "unpacked."
> I tested your patch when debootstrapping from squeeze, it did work.  Should
> I test some more scenarios (cdebootstrap?  2-phase cross-arch debootstrap?
> some other distro?) -- or do you think it should be safe?

Cool, thanks!! If testing is trivial for you then I'm sure this would be
appreciated (in particular the "it did not work before, but not it works"
improvement). While I wouldn't really expect any new problems, I don't know
enough about, e.g., cdebootstrap so maybe something could go wrong over there?


Attachment: pgp3dnyUpYZd7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: