Following up on bug 693964, hopefully the commits are self-explanatory.
Created attachment 599110 [details, diff] 0001-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-use-an-explicit-plac.patch
Created attachment 599112 [details, diff] 0002-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-drop-uncommon-variab.patch
Created attachment 599114 [details, diff] 0003-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-replace-example-grou.patch
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #1) > Created attachment 599110 [details, diff] [details, diff] > 0001-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-use-an-explicit-plac.patch Not sure if this is an improvement. The "123" example had the advantage that it was within the valid range. I don't see it as a problem that it's used by a real package. The manual has other examples like this (e.g., example ebuilds using real package names). Maybe we could go even one step further and use an actual ebuild from acct-user as an example?
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #2) > Created attachment 599112 [details, diff] [details, diff] > 0002-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-drop-uncommon-variab.patch (In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #3) > Created attachment 599114 [details, diff] [details, diff] > 0003-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-replace-example-grou.patch These look good to me. One could bikeshed if there should be quotes around ${PN}, but I don't think we have a policy for that.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #4) > (In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #1) > > Created attachment 599110 [details, diff] [details, diff] [details, diff] > > 0001-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-use-an-explicit-plac.patch > > Not sure if this is an improvement. The "123" example had the advantage that > it was within the valid range. I don't see it as a problem that it's used by > a real package. The manual has other examples like this (e.g., example > ebuilds using real package names). > > Maybe we could go even one step further and use an actual ebuild from > acct-user as an example? I agree with that. Maybe something from the high 4xx range to give even a better suggestion that we go downwards from there. (In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #2) > Created attachment 599112 [details, diff] [details, diff] > 0002-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-drop-uncommon-variab.patch This one LGTM. (In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #3) > Created attachment 599114 [details, diff] [details, diff] > 0003-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-replace-example-grou.patch I have mixed feelings about this but I suppose the array syntax makes it clear enough that multiple values are allowed.
Created attachment 600136 [details, diff] 0003-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-replace-example-grou.patch Updated 3rd patch just changes "Closes" to "Bug" in the footer.
Created attachment 600138 [details, diff] 0004-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-use-non-fictional-ex.patch And here's a patch on top of the first three that changes the two examples to use acct-{user,group}/suricata instead of a made-up one.
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #8) > Created attachment 600138 [details, diff] [details, diff] > 0004-ebuild-writing-users-and-groups-use-non-fictional-ex.patch > > And here's a patch on top of the first three that changes the two examples > to use acct-{user,group}/suricata instead of a made-up one. Can you squash this with the first patch of the series, please? Changing from a real ID to an invalid one and back to real doesn't make much sense.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #9) > > Can you squash this with the first patch of the series, please? Changing > from a real ID to an invalid one and back to real doesn't make much sense. I know, but this isn't a simple squash because the first and fourth commits are what need to be combined and the two in between modify the same stuff. Can I please not spend an hour mangling the history, editing the commit messages, and re-proof-reading everything?
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #10) > I know, but this isn't a simple squash because the first and fourth commits > are what need to be combined and the two in between modify the same stuff. > Can I please not spend an hour mangling the history, editing the commit > messages, and re-proof-reading everything? Well then: https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual/pull/148
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=56eb6bc591c3daff893e9060faed0c04b4adb7f1 commit 56eb6bc591c3daff893e9060faed0c04b4adb7f1 Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-01-23 19:29:35 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-01-23 19:29:35 +0000 ebuild-writing/users-and-groups: Use example ebuilds from tree. The acct-user/group ebuilds for suricata are rather typical examples, so replace the fictitious user 123 by them. This also has ${PN} as single element in ACCT_USER_GROUPS, and it drops the uncommon ACCT_USER_{SHELL,HOME{,_OWNER,_PERMS}} variables from the example. Original patch from Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> (who asked me to put my own name on it). Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/702508 Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> ebuild-writing/users-and-groups/text.xml | 22 +++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
