fedora-atomic discussion point: /usr/lib/passwd

Jan Zelený jzeleny at redhat.com
Mon Apr 14 08:43:33 UTC 2014

On 11. 4. 2014 at 17:08:49, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr at volny.cz> wrote:
> > So, having /usr/lib/passwd storing the same limited set of data is
> > not the right long-term thing.  Unfortunately, AFAIK the fuller
> > interface isn't ready yet.
> Yeah, it'd be nice to merge the accountsservice database in to the
> system db.  (And in general, have more consolidation among
> shadow-utils/sssd/accountsservice)
> > In the really-long-term, really-hand-wavy, future, I think we need to
> > move away from the 32-bit UIDs[3],
> I agree:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2009-April/msg02456.html
> > [2] Overall I'm strongly convinced that the fully-stateless ==
> > fully-atomic-updates model is simply unworkable.  We can have
> > stateless/atomic software installation, but we absolutely do need to
> > allow for arbitrary operations to be done on system's state between
> > loading the new version on disk and starting it.  Fedora-atomic can
> > have special support for a few classes of state know in advance, but
> > fully general software needs fully general post-installation
> > adjustments.  (E.g., where does ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN on software
> > upgrade fit in the Fedora-atomic model?)
> An ExecStartPre= entry in the systemd unit.

I will play devil's advocate here:

1) What if I don't use systemd to start whatever program needs the updated 
data? (might not be a daemon for example)

2) Wouldn't that start the migration script every time the daemon starts? 
Doesn't sound like a pretty solution.


More information about the devel mailing list