From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Legoll Subject: bug#24275: Misnamed directory in GuixSD Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 01:49:09 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20160820201100.GA22429@jocasta.intra> <20160821231410.GA4548@jasmine> <87bn0lciy1.fsf@gmail.com> <20160822180903.GB17367@jasmine> <87twe54wlq.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60391) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bdnMW-0007UP-AI for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:50:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bdnMQ-00061g-JM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:50:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:44583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bdnMQ-00061c-Ft for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:50:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bdnMQ-00062C-3x for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 19:50:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87twe54wlq.fsf@gnu.org> 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.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Alex Kost , 24275@debbugs.gnu.org, John Darrington On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Vincent Legoll skribis: > >> I came with the attached patch, totally untested, probably wrong for som= e >> cases... My patch was heuristic, so bound to be wrong sometimes... > We currently lack a way to specify whether the home directory should be > created, which would be useful for =E2=80=98nobody=E2=80=99. This is the alternative solution, specifying it, always right. > So what about a patch along these lines instead? It adds a > =E2=80=98create-home-directory?=E2=80=99 field to and sets= it to #f for > =E2=80=98nobody=E2=80=99. LGTM, but do I understand correctly: the default value being false, we will have to always specify the added param as true in system definitions ? Why not the other way around, that would not need any modifications of current configs. --=20 Vincent Legoll