Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 166937 - enewgroup/enewuser fails due to missing groupadd/useradd
Summary: enewgroup/enewuser fails due to missing groupadd/useradd
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 53269
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Core system (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo's Team for Core System packages
Depends on:
Reported: 2007-02-15 00:10 UTC by Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED)
Modified: 2011-06-18 03:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-02-15 00:10:14 UTC
In the same vein as bug #113298 with regard to users, we're having problems building stages for 2007.0's release.  It really is quite simple, when building a stage3 against the default-linux/ppc/ppc32/2006.1 profile, which has USE=ldap, openldap is in the dependency graph before shadow.  Because of this, enewgroup fails.  If you manually add the group to /etc/group, then enewuser fails.

While I understand the reasoning behind not having unused groups/users in the default group/passwd files, we really need to come up with a proper solution for this, or we're going to continually hit this each and every release.

My current "fix" for this is to build minimal versioned profiles, such as what has been done on alpha/amd64/ia64/x86, and having a "desktop" and "server" set of sub-profiles.  This allows us to build stages against the smaller profiles that don't have things like USE=ldap in them, while still providing a "full-featured" profile for users to use with sensible defaults.
Comment 1 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2007-02-15 04:36:54 UTC
the proper solution is not adding users/groups to /etc/passwd and /etc/group
Comment 2 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-02-15 13:27:55 UTC
Nobody said that it was the right solution, but we've had this problem for three releases now and it's just not funny anymore.  I don't really care how it is fixed.  It just needs to be fixed.

I don't care what you think is unacceptable, at all.  All I care about is what *is* acceptable so we can move forward and fix this.  So, what are some possible alternatives to fixing this that would be acceptable?
Comment 3 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2007-02-17 11:39:53 UTC
as ive said in the past, move shadow into stage1
Comment 4 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-02-19 15:37:59 UTC

I'm getting sick of repeating these same arguments every release.  Adding shadow to stage1 via causes all sorts of nasty dependency loops.  I *tried* to do that before, as I stated last time we had a bug like this (for the man user) and it didn't work out properly.  I know you like to stick with your guns when you think you have a solution, but your solution has been proven on more than one occasion to not work, so we cannot rely on it as a working answer to this problem.  This problem has existed for well more than a year and I'm sick of fighting over it.  The proposed solutions do not work and no solution that does work has ever been proposed.
Comment 5 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2007-02-19 15:56:05 UTC
nothing is stopping you from including a local patch in baselayout to add the appropriate users to work around for the release ... in fact, the readdition of the man user should be backed out from the baselayout svn
Comment 6 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-02-19 19:59:13 UTC
You are correct.

That is the solution that we took last time and likely the "solution" that I'll be taking again this time around.  However, that doesn't fix the problem.

I still would like to come to a proper solution for this, so we never have to hit it again.  I don't think adding users back to baselayout is the best solution, either.
Comment 7 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-03-08 17:21:42 UTC
OK.  So I'm adding the ldap user/group to baselayout if USE=ldap in the snapshot.

That should fix this up just fine.
Comment 8 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2007-03-08 17:42:35 UTC
i still think the long term solution here is the UID/GID glep that pioto has
Comment 9 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-03-09 02:42:59 UTC
Agreed.  Until that's done, we'll just patch it in the snapshot and defer non-snapshot/release-related bugs in it to you guys.
Comment 10 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2007-03-09 03:18:33 UTC
i'm happy with that
Comment 11 Mark Loeser (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-11-24 22:57:56 UTC
I don't see any reason for QA to be on this bug any longer since we are waiting on the long term solution.  Re-add and smack me if you disagree.
Comment 12 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2011-06-18 03:49:28 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 53269 ***