--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Fwd: Comments in /etc/passwd don't get updated |
|
Date: |
Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:00:59 +0000 |
In my Guix system's /etc/passwd file, my user named "abc" has a
comment attached to it. The relevant line is:
abc:x:1000:998:Old
Comment:/home/jkf:/gnu/store/71yp1p06jy2j96bfdz43f4p6ncdym5a1-zsh-5.8/bin/zsh
Today the users section of my current config.scm looks like this:
(users (cons* (user-account
(name "abc")
(group "users")
(comment "New Comment")
(supplementary-groups '("wheel"
"netdev"
"audio"
"video"
"disk"
"cdrom"
"docker"
"libvirt"
"kvm"))
(shell #~(string-append #$zsh "/bin/zsh")))
%base-user-accounts))
After I apply this configuration with `guix system reconfigure', I
expect /etc/passwd to have been updated with "New Comment" in place of
"Old Comment". However, "Old Comment" remains.
Similarly, if I omit the `comment' field entirely, I expect my user
comment to be removed from /etc/passwd, since the default value of the
`comment' field is documented to be an empty string (manual 10.6).
Again, the old comment remains.
I am reporting this on a recent Guix version cev9c6c5, but have
noticed this issue for a year at least.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#52539: Fwd: Comments in /etc/passwd don't get updated |
|
Date: |
Fri, 31 Dec 2021 18:32:16 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Jacob,
Jacob First <jacob.first@member.fsf.org> skribis:
> Thanks for the explanation. This rationale sounds reasonable to me. If
> someone with proper permission has modified a user account's comment,
> it could be important to preserve that customization.
>
> As I pointed out in an earlier message, I believe this behavior
> contradicts the documentation of the `user-account' data type pretty
> strongly. So it appears there is at least a "doc bug" here.
>
> FWIW, I actually reported the present behavior as a bug not because of
> the doc issue, but based on an assumption that "purely declarative"
> implied the result of applying a given configuration should not depend
> on any preexisting system state like a user comment. Sorry for not
> making that clear: it seemed obvious, but I think it's actually a
> misconception (even if user accounts are one of the few areas, AFAICT,
> where the property doesn't hold true).
I clarified this and ensures ‘chfn’ is actually usable in commit
c76775263e56a10cc1b84d03a5827f42436afe40.
Thanks!
Ludo’.
--- End Message ---