Bug 1439787
| Summary: | [spec] remove systemd-sysusers manpages | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | David Kupka <dkupka> |
| Component: | systemd | Assignee: | systemd-maint |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Branislav Blaškovič <bblaskov> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 7.4 | CC: | bblaskov, carl, jcholast, lnykryn, pvoborni, systemd-maint-list |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | systemd-219-36.el7 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-08-01 09:14:52 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
David Kupka
2017-04-06 14:15:53 UTC
We don't want to support sysusers in rhel so I guess we should remove those manpages as well. What is the reason to not support this IMO very useful feature in rhel? Is this information available somewhere publicly? Also why is the version of systemd package in rhel 219 when is doesn't contain feature from upstream version 215? The initial version of systemd in rhel7 was 208 and we did a rebase in 7.2 to 219. The rebase was not about bringing new features, but mainly to have more maintanable code. The upstream moved from libdbus to sd-bus after 208 and backports were a nightmare for us. We have tried to pack the 219 so it would look as close as possible to the 208. That included removal of sysuser, because we wanted to avoid customers screaming "Hey there is something new that adds users to my systems and we need to change our internal guidelines because of that!" The second reason was, that back then this was not properly tested in Fedora and if I am not mistaken it still is not. And the third reaons is that we did not get any use-cases for this feature and till now nobody complained that it is missing. I am not against adding it to rhel, but first I would like to either see requests from customers or a plan why we need it in rhel. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:2297 |