Adduser devel - Sep 2005 - Bug#330743: cups-pdf: No longer installable when not using shadow passwords.

On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 14:37 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But why does your system not have a shadow password file?
Because there is no law saying I have to have to use shadow passwords
and I prefer not to on this particular system.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:28:05PM +1200, James Sleeman
wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 14:37 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > But why does your system not have a shadow password file?
> Because there is no law saying I have to have to use shadow passwords
> and I prefer not to on this particular system.
Well, there''s no law that says Debian has to support non-shadow
systems,
either.  If you were making a case that you don''t need /etc/shadow
because
all your account data is in Kerberos or LDAP or something of the sort, or
that the /etc/shadow file was missing from your system because of a bug,
that would be one thing; but I don''t see any reason why Debian should
be
expected to support passwd-only systems.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/adduser-devel/attachments/20050929/60c4574f/attachment.pgp

On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 19:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> auto-converting to shadow rather than supporting the
> limited semantics of shadowless systems.
Sounds fair enough, provided the update isn''t just silently done, it
should definatly warn the user that they are going to be switched to
shadow passwords, or they can stop then with the understanding that some
stuff won''t work.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 02:35:07PM +1200, James Sleeman
wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 19:29 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > that would be one thing; but I don''t see any reason why
Debian should be
> > expected to support passwd-only systems.
> When I installed this debian system, many years ago it must be said, I
> was given the OPTION of using shadow passwords if I wished to do so, at
> the time (and mostly presently) I wished not to do so, for my own
> reasons.  If Debian still gives that as an OPTION then packages
> shouldn''t really expect that OPTION being chosen, unless there is
a way
> that packages can specify a dependancy on shadow passwords so that they
> won''t even attempt to install without them, then I think that
Debian
> packages must not simply break when people do not pick the OPTION in the
> install process.
> Of course, as I say, it''s been a long time since I''ve
done a debian
> install, so maybe shadow is no longer optional but a requirement.  In
> that case, fine.
Yes, it''s no longer an option.  We should of course still support an
upgrade
path for systems whose admins opted not to use shadow passwords, but I think
we should do that by auto-converting to shadow rather than supporting the
limited semantics of shadowless systems.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/adduser-devel/attachments/20050929/8bc2d9b4/attachment.pgp

On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 19:29 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> that would be one thing; but I don''t see any reason why Debian
should be
> expected to support passwd-only systems.
When I installed this debian system, many years ago it must be said, I
was given the OPTION of using shadow passwords if I wished to do so, at
the time (and mostly presently) I wished not to do so, for my own
reasons.  If Debian still gives that as an OPTION then packages
shouldn''t really expect that OPTION being chosen, unless there is a way
that packages can specify a dependancy on shadow passwords so that they
won''t even attempt to install without them, then I think that Debian
packages must not simply break when people do not pick the OPTION in the
install process.

Of course, as I say, it''s been a long time since I''ve done a
debian
install, so maybe shadow is no longer optional but a requirement.  In
that case, fine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/adduser-devel/attachments/20050930/2958d1a4/attachment.html