From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#40652: #36924 way solves the problem for me Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 18:40:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87wo6c7nny.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200416002020.GA381@tulip> <20200416053137.GA787@tulip> <87pnc7yjgd.fsf@yamatai> <877dyfkegp.fsf@gnu.org> <87o8rryfih.fsf@yamatai> <87mu7bye95.fsf@yamatai> <87eesnf8jd.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2qucwgn.fsf@yamatai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52477) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqWd-0003Az-Bz for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:41:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqWc-0001Rw-5q for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:41:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60179) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqWc-0001R9-2T for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:41:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jPqWc-0005sp-0n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:41:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87y2qucwgn.fsf@yamatai> (Guillaume Le Vaillant's message of "Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:06:48 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Guillaume Le Vaillant Cc: 40652@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, Guillaume Le Vaillant skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s skribis: > >> =E2=80=98%gdm-activation=E2=80=99 would throw an exception if the =E2=80= =9Cgdm=E2=80=9D user didn=E2=80=99t >> exist, so apparently it=E2=80=99s run before the activation snippet of >> =E2=80=98account-service-type=E2=80=99 (the ordering guarantee is not ex= plicit.) >> >> Hmm I wonder what I=E2=80=99m missing then. Would you like to try again? > > I tried again and I wasn't able to reproduce the problem. > Maybe I did something weird with my config last time, but I can't > remember what it could have been... OK. >> Now, I think we should generalize this chown thing and apply it to all >> the user accounts. =E2=80=98user-homes=E2=80=99 would chown recursively= if needed or >> use the newfangled shiftfs, like systemd-homed does=C2=B9. >> >> Thoughts? >> Ludo=E2=80=99. >> >> =C2=B9 https://systemd.io/HOME_DIRECTORY/ > > A recursive chown for system accounts (with their home directory > somewhere in '/var') sounds like a good idea. > > For user accounts (in '/home'), I guess it could be slightly annoying if > a user wants to set a specific group id to some of their files and if it > gets set back to the 'users' group at each system reconfiguration. > However it's probably not a very common use case, and if we only change > the files' uid, they could end up with an invalid gid anyway. Right. The recursive chown would only happen if the home directory itself has the wrong UID though, so that would still let you fiddle with ownership of the files within it. Worth trying! Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.