Bug 742225 - missing dependency to vi
missing dependency to vi
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: shadow-utils (Show other bugs)
16
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Peter Vrabec
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-09-29 08:47 EDT by Mads Kiilerich
Modified: 2011-11-10 11:35 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-11-10 11:10:50 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mads Kiilerich 2011-09-29 08:47:16 EDT
vipw will by default use vi, but there is no dependency to vi. It is thus possible to end up with a non-working vipw.

I would expect a dependency to /bin/vi or vim-minimal ... or something that sets a global EDITOR in some kind of alternatives system.

I am however also aware that shadow-utils is a very fundamental package and that a dependency to vim could be considered a regression.

shadow-utils-4.1.4.3-7.fc16.x86_64
Comment 1 Tomas Mraz 2011-09-29 09:45:44 EDT
Surely, I do not think that adding dependency to vi is desirable on shadow-utils. And adding a special subpackage for vipw seems to me like an overkill as well.
However vipw should fail gracefully with a proper error message suggesting to install the vi.
Comment 2 Peter Vrabec 2011-11-10 11:10:50 EST
sh: vi: command not found
vipw: vi: No such file or directory
vipw: vi: No such file or directory
vipw: /etc/passwd is unchanged

I hope these messages are OK.
Comment 3 Mads Kiilerich 2011-11-10 11:35:02 EST
Well ... yes ... the messages are Ok. They show that the package is missing a requirement ;-)

IIRC debian patches _every_ application with their own editor scheme. I don't like their way of doing it, but I think Fedora should have some kind of solution to the problem.

Wouldn't a simple but working scheme be to let all editors drop a (prioritized) snippet in /etc/profile.d setting EDITOR and/or VISUAL and provide "editor". That would allow shadow-utils (and sudo and crontab and...) to grow a dependency to "editor" without forcing users to install a particular editor.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.