Hide Forgot
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1300533 +++ Description of problem: A customer had a 'rpc' user (not UID=32) on the system, but the existing 'rpc' user was deleted by the installation of rpcbind package without any message. We found a fedora documentation about packaging, and it says that any user account should not be deleted during the package installation. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups?rd=Packaging/UsersAndGroups In rpcbind.spec: ---------------------------------- %pre # Check the validity of the rpc uid and gid. # If they don't exist, create them # If they exist but are the wrong value, remove them # and recreate them with the correct value # If they exist and are the correct value do nothing rpcid=`getent passwd rpc | cut -d: -f 3` if [ -n "$rpcid" -a "$rpcid" != "32" ]; then /usr/sbin/userdel rpc 2> /dev/null || : /usr/sbin/groupdel rpc 2> /dev/null || : fi if [ -z "$rpcid" -o "$rpcid" != "32" ]; then /usr/sbin/groupadd -o -g 32 rpc > /dev/null 2>&1 /usr/sbin/useradd -o -l -c "Rpcbind Daemon" -d /var/cache/rpcbind -g 32 \ -M -s /sbin/nologin -u 32 rpc > /dev/null 2>&1 fi ---------------------------------- It forces to have the 'rpc' account with UID=32. If the UID is not 32, it removes it and create another 'rpc' account with UID=32. If the above fedora documentation is correct, it should not remove the existing 'rpc' account during the installation. As an example of another package, 'httpd' also creates a user account 'apache'. But, if the user account 'apache' exists, it never remove the existing account. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 --- Additional comment from Masahiro Matsuya on 2016-03-25 03:18:34 EDT --- 6.8 is on testing phase. Moved to 6.9.
Fedora commit: commit 058b1d088d77db67344db42c521be53c23e96c46 Author: Steve Dickson <steved> Date: Mon Apr 4 12:07:52 2016 -0400 Softly allocate rpc uid/gid (bz 1301288)
Move to VERIFIED as comment 5, and continue to run the automatic case.
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://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-2274.html