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

Re: tech-ctte: More specific advice regarding merged-/usr and implications of #978636

>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:
    Josh> Over the years, I've seen a few proposals floated to consider
    Josh> dropping /etc/shells; this would just require dropping
    Josh> pam_shells.so from /etc/pam.d/chsh. That would also have the
    Josh> side effect of solving this problem, and making one less thing
    Josh> requiring maintainer scripts.

I think that would be a really bad idea.
The issue is not on the chsh side, but more that membership in
/etc/shells is a really good (but not perfect) indicator about whether
this is an account that supports normal logins.

I can see the arguments for change, but:

1) /etc/shells does have some value

2) It's something existing admins do expect, and there actually is a lot
of value in continuing to meet expectations

3) The negative political consequences to making that sort of change as
part of usrmerge  cannot be over stated.

There actually are legitimate concerns that  the people favoring
systemd, usrmerge, and the like are disregarding legitimate concerns
about stability of interfaces and expectations.
Having you as a significant member of that camp propose this change in a
manner that looks like you are proposing doing it in an expedited manner
*as part of usrmerge* smells really bad and adds legitimacy to those
Even when you disagree with people, I'd ask you to consider these sort
of implications.
I think it's a significant part of helping people feel that their input
is respected as the world changes.


Reply to: