Michal - Thanks for the update! I believe when we updated the .spec file from quagga to frr we did exactly what you summized. We just changed the name. I personally do not care nor do I think that the actual userid matters. So switching over to a system where we just get what the OS assigns us is fine. David Lamparter and/or Martin Winter may have a bit more history here than I do and I have cc'ed them on the email. donald On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 8:16 AM Michal Ruprich <michalruprich@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Donald,
thanks for the offer, but I am almost finished. There is one issue though. I am looking at the redhat/frr.spec file in the archive and you are using the frr user and group together with number 92 and the frrvty group together with number 85. And these numbers are used with the useradd and groupadd commands. I am assuming that this is some kind of overlooked leftover from quagga? I don't think that we should use numbered uid/gid anywhere in the spec file. I am trying to figure out whether this is important anywhere in the code but AFAICT the numbers are not important - the names are.
Imagine a system with quagga installed. Now there is a conflict between binaries from quagga and frr, obviously. So these should not be installed together(or they could be through the usage of alternatives which is just awful) so when you install frr, quagga should be removed and vice-versa. The general rule is that after removing a package, its group and user are not removed from the system[1]. This would make a problem since frr user and group and the frrvty group would not be created because the specific uid/gid are already in use. So I am trying to determine whether the specific uid/gid in the spec file are really needed or not. I believe they are not needed and simply useradd -r frr and groupadd -r frr are enough. Otherwise, if you really want to keep the original numbers, the groups should be renamed back to quagga and quaggvt.
What do you think?
Michal.
Links:
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging%3aUsersAndGroups#Allocation_Strateg...
On 6/21/19 3:13 PM, Donald Sharp wrote:
Michal -
I see that There has been a request for some changes in the packaging of FRR. What can we do to help you out here? Any way we can divide and conquer as a group?
donald
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 4:42 AM Michal Ruprich <michalruprich@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I am happy to announce that I have started a review process for FRR to be added to Fedora[1]. After we figure out all the packaging details, FRR will be available in F29 and higher. I need to mention one important thing. I have added the latest version of FRR but without babeld and ldpd modules. These two modules are still having licensing issues and I will not include them in the distro unless all these issues are resolved.
Regards,
Michal Ruprich
--------------------------------
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702720
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev