Bug#621833: System user handling in packages: status of discussion
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:42:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:00:25PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:12:20AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > * When the package is removed, the user should be locked:
> > > "lockuser foo".
> > > * lockuser is a still-hypothetical tool, which needs to be added
> > > to the adduser package. It is a wrapper around "usermod -L -e 1 foo".
> > > * Similarly, adduser needs to be changed to unlock:
> > > "usermod -U -e '' foo".
>
> > Why not extending deluser to not delete the user if it is a system
> > account?
>
> Because that's contrary to the obvious meaning of 'deluser' and will be
> confusing to maintainers, if it doesn't actually result in the user being
> deleted. It's much better to have an interface that does what it says.
That would mean changing probably thousands of packages.
> > No, the local admin might have put important additional data in there.
> > It may be an idea to remove all files that the _package_ has put
> > there, but that would be a _significant_ burden IMO.
>
> This should be configurable by the package maintainer using a
> --remove-home flag. In the general case, admins should not use
> per-package directories under /var/lib as a dumping ground for
> arbitrary files and then expect these files to be retained when the
> package is purged.
If that behavior is documented (in Policy?), I am fine with zapping
user data.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062
Reply to: