From 620cb0e90f8d84e4c19aa041c87f588211f5ff49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:15:46 -0400 Subject: thoughts --- ...ment_3_e83459b7775832e3885999eb28dca045._comment | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/chown:_invalid_group:___8216__com-sixs:com-sixs__8217__/comment_3_e83459b7775832e3885999eb28dca045._comment (limited to 'doc') diff --git a/doc/forum/chown:_invalid_group:___8216__com-sixs:com-sixs__8217__/comment_3_e83459b7775832e3885999eb28dca045._comment b/doc/forum/chown:_invalid_group:___8216__com-sixs:com-sixs__8217__/comment_3_e83459b7775832e3885999eb28dca045._comment new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3a6837aa --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/chown:_invalid_group:___8216__com-sixs:com-sixs__8217__/comment_3_e83459b7775832e3885999eb28dca045._comment @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 3""" + date="2019-02-17T18:07:39Z" + content=""" +Thinking more about a hypothetical property like +`userGroupFunction (\User u -> Group (u ++ "-group"))` +the idea seems problimatic because all the properties that install a +package with a dedicated user and group would seem to need to be changed +to support putting the user in the group configured by the property. + +I suppose it could be documented to be limited to non-system users and +groups, so only User.accountFor would need to support when making users and +groups, and Ssh.userKeyAt etc would use it to tell what group to use for a +non-system user. + +Although, is Ssh.userKeyAt etc really limited to being +used with non-system users? Perhaps User should have an additional +SystemUser constructor to encode the distinction. Or perhaps this idea of +mine is going in the wrong direction. +"""]] -- cgit v1.2.3