[systemd-devel] new user/group population on bootup

[Lennart Poettering]

On Sat, 14.06.14 11:55, Colin Walters (walters at verbum.org) wrote:

> 
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Michael Marineau wrote:
> >
> > For what its worth, in my efforts to make CoreOS boot with a
> > completely empty root filesystem I found that the changes required
> > were usually not too dramatic. Fixing many packages, like sudo, just
> > amounted to shipping different config files and adding
> > --sysconfdir=/usr/share to ./configure at build time. For dbus it only
> > takes that configure option plus a update to session.conf and
> > system.conf to support both /usr/share/dbus-1 and /etc/dbus-1 for
> > configs:
> > https://github.com/coreos/coreos-overlay/blob/master/sys-apps/dbus/files/dbus-1.6.x-add-explicit-etc-path.patch
> 
> Interesting.  A clean patch might be worth submitting upstream to dbus
> for this, i.e. one where it just automatically reads
> /usr/share/dbus-1/config or so, supporting overrides in /etc.  I don't
> think you'd find anyone today who would defend the current dbus XML and
> policy layout, but then again, it was designed in 2001-2002.
> 
> It also predates PolicyKit, and back then the thought was that admins
> might have to edit the XML to e.g. disallow users from accessing
> NetworkManager type services.
> 
> I know kdbus is on the horizon, but there'll be services installing
> policy files there for quite a while, and it would make sense to move
> the ones that really don't have any reason to be configured by admins,
> which at least on my workstation is most of them.

I would certainly enjoy if good old dbus could be fixed like that. But
then again, I am too lazy to work on that myself...

> Yes: http://blog.verbum.org/2014/01/24/why-ostree-requires-usretc/

I love the concept. Don't like the name. This really should be a
differnt dir than /usr/etc....

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat