Skip to content

Bunch of sysusers.d handling fixes - #2745

Merged
pmatilai merged 4 commits into
rpm-software-management:masterfrom
pmatilai:sysuserbug
Nov 7, 2023
Merged

pmatilai merged 4 commits into
rpm-software-management:masterfrom
pmatilai:sysuserbug

Conversation

@pmatilai

@pmatilai pmatilai commented Nov 3, 2023 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Initially reported at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246236 and also #2741. Details in the commit messages. Amazing how many bugs and oversights one can pack into such a tiny little macro 😆

@pmatilai pmatilai added the bug label Nov 3, 2023
Lua has error() but no warning() (obviously) which we'll want in the next
step, so for consistency lets just use macro.error() instead.
I'm quite sure I didn't really intend to test duplicate files behavior
here...
People will want to use existing sysusers.d files through rpm and while
we don't support 'r' and 'm' at this time, we shouldn't really call
them "invalid" and error out. Issue a warning instead, and ignore.

This is the first half of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246236
sysusers.d(8) format permits empty lines and commits, and so must we.
Add some extra fluff to the test-case for this.

This is the second half of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246236

Fixes: rpm-software-management#2741
@pmatilai
pmatilai merged commit a8ec768 into rpm-software-management:master Nov 7, 2023
@pmatilai
pmatilai deleted the sysuserbug branch November 7, 2023 08:09
@dmnks dmnks added the packaging Package building, SPEC files, etc. label Nov 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug packaging Package building, SPEC files, etc.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants