-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 04/12/17 17:00, Shiz wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 21:30, Drew DeVault <ddevault_at_vistarmedia.com>
>> wrote: I would also recommend just porting shadow over using
>> busybox user management tooling. I think `useradd` et al has a
>> more Unix design than `adduser` et al. Thankfully the shadow
>> codebase hasn't yet been corrupted beyond saving by the broader
>> Linux ecosystem's influence.
> Definitely agree with this. I am also of the opinion that `useradd`
> and friends seem more commonly used, and it’s a shame to have to
> recommend using the shadow package for everyone that wants to
> either use it themselves or have tooling using it.
The amount of things that are broken by not having `useradd` is
insane. We ship shadow in base in Adélie anyway, so this isn't too
big of an issue, but what is an issue is that Alpine build scripts
still think `adduser` and `addgroup` are the way to go. Our builders
don't have busybox so I had to write clumsy shell shims to 'translate'
I can send them to the list if anyone would be interested; normally I
would put a link, but our Git server ENOSPC'd and I'm still trying to
clean up the pieces before bringing the web interface back online.
I could also write wrappers the other way around if Alpine is really
tied to using `adduser` and `addgroup` so that build scripts can use
`useradd` and `groupadd` without a dependency on shadow.
BTW, is there a reason Alpine doesn't ship shadow as a base dep? Does
Alpine really recommend use of tcb, or is it some other system? I've
never been able to figure this out and in fact this is why I gave up
trying to deploy Alpine at my last employer. We used LDAP and I
couldn't for the life of me make Alpine login(1) use it.
> s6 with a porcelain layer still seems very interesting
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Mon Dec 04 2017 - 17:45:33 GMT