GNU bug report logs - #45836
cups-service-type duplicates lp group

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Leo Prikler <leo.prikler <at> student.tugraz.at>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#45836: closed (cups-service-type duplicates lp group)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:17:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Wed, 20 Jan 2021 09:16:13 +0100
with message-id <b8af3871582e4c1f19ffa595774423c81ab4af90.camel <at> student.tugraz.at>
and subject line Re: [PATCH] services: Let cups-service-type reuse base lp group.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #45836,
regarding cups-service-type duplicates lp group
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
45836: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=45836
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Leo Prikler <leo.prikler <at> student.tugraz.at>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: cups-service-type duplicates lp group
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:09:23 +0100

Hello Guix,

it has come to my attention due to the recent reporting of #45830 and
some conversation in IRC, that cups-service-type adds an lp group,
which is already defined in %base-groups.  Since both share the same
definition, this is not too big an issue, but it prohibits us from
using a hard error for #45770.

I can currently think of two solutions: Either remove the lp group from
cups-service-type or remove it from base-groups.  Neither sounds
particularly awesome.  Perhaps we could also delete identical
duplicates before asserting that there are none for #45770, but that
sounds like a little much effort.  Any ideas how else to solve this?

Regards,
Leo

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Leo Prikler <leo.prikler <at> student.tugraz.at>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 45836-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] services: Let cups-service-type reuse base lp group.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 09:16:13 +0100

Am Montag, den 18.01.2021, 15:47 +0100 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Hi,
> 
> Leo Prikler <leo.prikler <at> student.tugraz.at> skribis:
> 
> > > > diff --git a/gnu/system/shadow.scm b/gnu/system/shadow.scm
> > > > index 0538fb1a24..7c57222716 100644
> > > > --- a/gnu/system/shadow.scm
> > > > +++ b/gnu/system/shadow.scm
> > > > @@ -321,13 +321,13 @@ of user '~a' is undeclared")
> > > >  <user-group> objects.  Raise an error if a user account refers
> > > > to
> > > > a undefined
> > > >  group."
> > > >    (define accounts
> > > > -    (filter user-account? accounts+groups))
> > > > +    (delete-duplicates (filter user-account? accounts+groups)
> > > > eq?))
> > > >  
> > > >    (define user-specs
> > > >      (map user-account->gexp accounts))
> > > >  
> > > >    (define groups
> > > > -    (filter user-group? accounts+groups))
> > > > +    (delete-duplicates (filter user-group? accounts+groups)
> > > > eq?))
> > > 
> > > Why use ‘eq?’?  I’d use ‘equal?’, but note that <user-account>
> > > records
> > > cannot necessarily be compared with ‘equal?’ because of the
> > > thunked
> > > ‘home-directory’ field (‘equal?’ is meaningless for procedures).
> > My personal reasoning (and perhaps a rather strong opinion) is,
> > that it
> > is an error to add duplicate users even if they happen to be
> > equal?. 
> > eq? is only provided as a way out for the specific case of
> > services,
> > that need to do so for safety reasons – e.g. cups to not allow
> > overriding of the lp group if it has been removed from the OS
> > groups
> > for whichever reason.
> 
> Ah I see, makes sense to me!
I've now pushed it with eq?, if there's a (good!) reason to change that
to equal?, it can still be done later.

Regards,
Leo

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.