[PATCHv2 0/1] Revert cleaning of users/groups

[PATCHv2 0/1] Revert cleaning of users/groups

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

About a week ago the "solution" to
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9262 was accepted
into OE-Core. This is supposed to solve the problem that users/groups
are not removed from the sysroot when the recipe is cleansstated. The
solution, however, totally fails to handle the case where multiple
recipes have installed the same user/group causing the build to fail
all over the place.

We have a lot of recipes that installs users and groups, many of which
are created by multiple recipes. An example of how this change broke
for us:

Recipe libwsd creates the wsd group. Recipe wsd creates the wsd group
and the wsd user which has the wsd group as it primary group. When the
libwsd recipe needs to be rebuilt the following error occurs:

groupdel: cannot remove the primary group of user 'wsd'

and the build aborts.

If a solution like this is supposed to be implemented it needs to keep
track of all recipes that install a particular user/group and only
when all of them have been removed can the user/group be removed.
Until that has been solved, the current solution needs to be
reverted...

PATCHv2: Correct a typo in the commit message.

//Peter

The following changes since commit 5602f64ab8c3654737273c0e7ac1c966fa8afb6a:

  archiver: Fix ASSUME_PROVIDED issues (2016-04-11 09:03:58 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib pkj/clean_users
  http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=pkj/clean_users

Peter Kjellerstedt (1):
  Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in
    clean* task"

 meta/classes/sstate.bbclass  |  5 -----
 meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 -----------------------------
 2 files changed, 34 deletions(-)

-- 
2.1.0

[PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented here
totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups.

This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089.

Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
---
 meta/classes/sstate.bbclass  |  5 -----
 meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 -----------------------------
 2 files changed, 34 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass
index 8c62327..4a4269c 100644
--- a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@ SSTATEPREINSTFUNCS = ""
 SSTATEPOSTUNPACKFUNCS = "sstate_hardcode_path_unpack"
 SSTATEPOSTINSTFUNCS = ""
 EXTRA_STAGING_FIXMES ?= ""
-SSTATECLEANFUNCS = ""
 
 # Check whether sstate exists for tasks that support sstate and are in the
 # locked signatures file.
@@ -451,10 +450,6 @@ def sstate_clean(ss, d):
                 stfile.endswith(rm_nohash):
             oe.path.remove(stfile)
 
-    # Removes the users/groups created by the package
-    for cleanfunc in (d.getVar('SSTATECLEANFUNCS', True) or '').split():
-        bb.build.exec_func(cleanfunc, d)
-
 sstate_clean[vardepsexclude] = "SSTATE_MANFILEPREFIX"
 
 CLEANFUNCS += "sstate_cleanall"
diff --git a/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass b/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass
index ee402ac..0a6f2be 100644
--- a/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass
@@ -127,35 +127,6 @@ useradd_sysroot_sstate () {
 	fi
 }
 
-userdel_sysroot_sstate () {
-if test "x${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}" != "x"; then
-    if [ "${BB_CURRENTTASK}" = "configure" -o "${BB_CURRENTTASK}" = "clean" ]; then
-        export PSEUDO="${FAKEROOTENV} PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR=${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}${localstatedir}/pseudo ${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}${bindir}/pseudo"
-        OPT="--root ${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}"
-
-        # Remove groups and users defined for package
-        GROUPADD_PARAM="${@get_all_cmd_params(d, 'groupadd')}"
-        USERADD_PARAM="${@get_all_cmd_params(d, 'useradd')}"
-
-        if test "x`echo $USERADD_PARAM | tr -d '[:space:]'`" != "x"; then
-            user=`echo "$USERADD_PARAM" | cut -d ';' -f 1 | awk '{ print $NF }'`
-            perform_userdel "${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}" "$OPT $user"
-        fi
-
-        if test "x`echo $GROUPADD_PARAM | tr -d '[:space:]'`" != "x"; then
-            group=`echo "$GROUPADD_PARAM" | cut -d ';' -f 1 | awk '{ print $NF }'`
-            perform_groupdel "${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}" "$OPT $group"
-        fi
-
-    fi
-fi
-}
-
-SSTATECLEANFUNCS = "userdel_sysroot_sstate"
-SSTATECLEANFUNCS_class-cross = ""
-SSTATECLEANFUNCS_class-native = ""
-SSTATECLEANFUNCS_class-nativesdk = ""
-
 do_install[prefuncs] += "${SYSROOTFUNC}"
 SYSROOTFUNC = "useradd_sysroot"
 SYSROOTFUNC_class-cross = ""
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Otavio Salvador]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt
<peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
> Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented here
> totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups.
>
> This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>

Acked-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 15:18 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented
> here
> totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups.
> 
> This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> ---
>  meta/classes/sstate.bbclass  |  5 -----
>  meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 -----------------------------
>  2 files changed, 34 deletions(-)

This is one of these situations where we can't win.

Without this code, there is no way to clean up these users out the
sysroot. Having to tell people to "wipe TMPDIR" when the parameters
used to create a user change for example is rather bad. It also has bad
implications for build determinism and the expectation that a "clean"
undoes the changes a recipe makes.

Have we ever documented we support the same user being created by
multiple recipes?

I'm open to proposals about how to fix this but an outright revert
doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Making it optional so you can
disable it for your multiple recipes case would perhaps be a better
option for example.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Otavio Salvador]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 15:18 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>> Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented
>> here
>> totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups.
>>
>> This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/classes/sstate.bbclass  |  5 -----
>>  meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 -----------------------------
>>  2 files changed, 34 deletions(-)
>
> This is one of these situations where we can't win.
>
> Without this code, there is no way to clean up these users out the
> sysroot. Having to tell people to "wipe TMPDIR" when the parameters
> used to create a user change for example is rather bad. It also has bad
> implications for build determinism and the expectation that a "clean"
> undoes the changes a recipe makes.
>
> Have we ever documented we support the same user being created by
> multiple recipes?
>
> I'm open to proposals about how to fix this but an outright revert
> doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Making it optional so you can
> disable it for your multiple recipes case would perhaps be a better
> option for example.

I am not against the change by the timing; it should be merged in
master as soon it is open for 2.2 work.


-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Otavio Salvador [mailto:otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br]
> Sent: den 12 april 2016 18:36
> To: Richard Purdie
> Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt; Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove
> user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> 
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 15:18 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> >> Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented here
> >> totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups.
> >>
> >> This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> >> ---
> >>  meta/classes/sstate.bbclass  |  5 -----
> >>  meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 -----------------------------
> >>  2 files changed, 34 deletions(-)
> >
> > This is one of these situations where we can't win.
> >
> > Without this code, there is no way to clean up these users out the
> > sysroot. Having to tell people to "wipe TMPDIR" when the parameters
> > used to create a user change for example is rather bad. It also has bad
> > implications for build determinism and the expectation that a "clean"
> > undoes the changes a recipe makes.

Well, build determinism is also broken when it comes to creating 
users and groups if two recipes tries to create the same user (or 
group) with different definitions, since the first recipe that 
happens to be installed wins... 

In our case we have solved this by using the useradd-staticids.bbclass, 
which allows us to have common definitions for the users, in addition 
to only use GROUPMEMS_PARAM to add users to groups. But there should 
really be some QA warning/error to catch this from happening...

> > Have we ever documented we support the same user being created by
> > multiple recipes?

I am pretty sure you have not documented that it is NOT supported... 
Because if it was not supported, then I would have expected errors 
if two recipes tried to install the same user/group. And I cannot 
see the logic behind not allowing it (except because it makes it 
hard to uninstall users and groups), because if a package needs a 
user/group, then of course it should be allowed to make sure the 
user/group exists...

> > I'm open to proposals about how to fix this but an outright revert
> > doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Making it optional so you can
> > disable it for your multiple recipes case would perhaps be a better
> > option for example.

Making it a configuration option does not sound like a good idea 
because having multiple recipes install the same user/group can lead 
to build errors and that is not something you should need to configure 
around.

One way to solve the problem of both creating users/groups and being 
able to remove them in deterministic ways would be to only allow them 
to be created from special user/group recipes. Then the normal 
dependency handling would make sure they are installed and removed as 
needed. The drawback of course would be all the extra packages needed 
to create users and groups (which in our case would be a considerable 
number of packages).

An alternative solution would be to create package specific files 
somewhere in the sysroot which keep track of what users and groups a 
particular package has created, i.e., something like 
"users/systemd-timesync/systemd" which would be created by the systemd 
package when it creates the systemd-timesync user. That way it would 
be easy to only remove the systemd-timesync user when 
"users/systemd-timesync" is empty. A benefit of this solution is that 
it would only require changes to useradd.bbclass so it can be 
implemented without having to change any recipes. A minor drawback is 
that it would not solve the problem of different recipes creating the 
same user differently.

> I am not against the change by the timing; it should be merged in
> master as soon it is open for 2.2 work.

I have to agree with this. Above are two solutions on how to make 
this work, but doing it at this stage of the release schedule is 
probably asking a bit much (especially the first solution)...

//Peter

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Richard Purdie]

I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not
immediately obvious though.

The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who
actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core
architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch
here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the
bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been
seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which
weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe
recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code.

Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely.

If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do
anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and
fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real
world usability problem there.

In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I
think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to
the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why
we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different
workflows and corner cases.

I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to
determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are
contributing to them outside the usual suspects.

I'm therefore starting to think the correct answer to this thread is
simply this:

The patch doesn't break any of the current regression tests. If you
have use cases like this you care about, you really should make sure we
have test coverage for them, else you run the risk of exactly the
problem we have here.

I haven't honestly decided what to do but this latter conclusion is
very tempting from where I'm sitting...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05
> To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador
> Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org)
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove
> user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> 
> I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not
> immediately obvious though.
> 
> The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who
> actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core
> architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch
> here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the
> bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been
> seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which
> weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe
> recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code.
> 
> Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely.
> 
> If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do
> anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and
> fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real
> world usability problem there.

Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to 
address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at 
how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested 
solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for Krogoth. 
Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too 
late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing 
users.

> In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I
> think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to
> the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why
> we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different
> workflows and corner cases.
> 
> I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to
> determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are
> contributing to them outside the usual suspects.

Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go about 
adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple 
recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a 
specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not 
know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience 
either).

> I'm therefore starting to think the correct answer to this thread is
> simply this:
> 
> The patch doesn't break any of the current regression tests. If you
> have use cases like this you care about, you really should make sure we
> have test coverage for them, else you run the risk of exactly the
> problem we have here.
> 
> I haven't honestly decided what to do but this latter conclusion is
> very tempting from where I'm sitting...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard

//Peter

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Maxin B. John]

Hi Peter,

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:14:09PM +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org]
> > Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05
> > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador
> > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org)
> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove
> > user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> > 
> > I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not
> > immediately obvious though.
> > 
> > The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who
> > actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core
> > architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch
> > here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the
> > bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been
> > seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which
> > weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe
> > recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code.
> > 
> > Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely.
> > 
> > If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do
> > anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and
> > fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real
> > world usability problem there.
> 
> Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to 
> address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at 
> how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested 
> solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for Krogoth. 
> Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too 
> late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing 
> users.

As the author of that patch, I am responsible for that regression and would 
like to assist in fixing that particular problem. As you can see, I had no
option to test your particular scenario as that recipe was not part of my oe-core 
"world" build test. RP has already sent a patch to fix the "cyrus-sasl" recipe
which had some troubles with this change.

> > In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I
> > think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to
> > the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why
> > we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different
> > workflows and corner cases.
> > 
> > I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to
> > determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are
> > contributing to them outside the usual suspects.
> 
> Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go about 
> adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple 
> recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a 
> specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not 
> know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience 
> either).

Just want to let you know that I am interested in working together to fix this one.
As per my understanding, you have a library and an application, which depends on that 
library. Both these packages creates the same user. 

At this point, a package manager (eg: smart) doesn't remove the users when we remove the package.
However, I am not sure about the situation where a package manager removes the users added by a 
package when we remove it from the target device. In that case,wouldn't the removal of application, 
remove the user which the library depends on ?

Best Regards,
Maxin

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 15:14 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org]
> > Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05
> > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador
> > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org)
> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass:
> > remove
> > user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> > 
> > I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps
> > not
> > immediately obvious though.
> > 
> > The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who
> > actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core
> > architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good
> > patch
> > here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into
> > the
> > bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has
> > been
> > seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects
> > which
> > weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta
> > -oe
> > recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code.
> > 
> > Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely.
> > 
> > If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do
> > anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try
> > and
> > fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a
> > real
> > world usability problem there.
> 
> Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to 
> address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at 
> how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested 
> solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for
> Krogoth. 
> Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too 
> late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing 
> users.

There is a comparatively neat way we could use pkgdata to track the
provider of a given user, specifically:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip
&id=5cd646ea185eaafaa341f26310f2eddc75766175

The above is a quick patch I've just put together which illustrates
what could be done so that the user gets better warnings about
conflicting users. It needs cleaning up but thought it worth sharing
now as if might give some ideas.

This is in keeping with how bitbake detects multiple providers of the
same thing.

> Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go
> about 
> adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple 
> recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a 
> specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not 
> know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience 
> either).

oe-selftest would be the place to add something like this, see the
 /meta/lib/oeqa/selftest directory. We could add some test useradd
recipes to meta-selftest.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 17:29 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> There is a comparatively neat way we could use pkgdata to track the
> provider of a given user, specifically:
> 
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/w
> ip
> &id=5cd646ea185eaafaa341f26310f2eddc75766175
> 
> The above is a quick patch I've just put together which illustrates
> what could be done so that the user gets better warnings about
> conflicting users. It needs cleaning up but thought it worth sharing
> now as if might give some ideas.
> 
> This is in keeping with how bitbake detects multiple providers of the
> same thing.

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip
&id=a362e6da0eec1f7a7d4db19d47f16b1c729562ba

is an improved version.

> > Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go
> > about 
> > adding a regression test that verifies the support for that
> > multiple 
> > recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a 
> > specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not
> > know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience 
> > either).
> 
> oe-selftest would be the place to add something like this, see the
>  /meta/lib/oeqa/selftest directory. We could add some test useradd
> recipes to meta-selftest.

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip
&id=23134a7d837bc7985ba8e7069d405913c2055a04

is a really simplistic new selftest for useradd. It does however test
the bug the original patch fixes. There are clearly a much wider range
of things it could test, I just wanted to show this isn't hard.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: den 14 april 2016 12:41
> To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador
> Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org)
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove
> user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> 
> On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 17:29 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > There is a comparatively neat way we could use pkgdata to track the
> > provider of a given user, specifically:
> >
> > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip&id=5cd646ea185eaafaa341f26310f2eddc75766175
> >
> > The above is a quick patch I've just put together which illustrates
> > what could be done so that the user gets better warnings about
> > conflicting users. It needs cleaning up but thought it worth sharing
> > now as if might give some ideas.
> >
> > This is in keeping with how bitbake detects multiple providers of the
> > same thing.
> 
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip&id=a362e6da0eec1f7a7d4db19d47f16b1c729562ba
> 
> is an improved version.
> 
> > > Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go
> > > about
> > > adding a regression test that verifies the support for that
> > > multiple
> > > recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a
> > > specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not
> > > know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience
> > > either).
> >
> > oe-selftest would be the place to add something like this, see the
> >  /meta/lib/oeqa/selftest directory. We could add some test useradd
> > recipes to meta-selftest.
> 
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip&id=23134a7d837bc7985ba8e7069d405913c2055a04
> 
> is a really simplistic new selftest for useradd. It does however test
> the bug the original patch fixes. There are clearly a much wider range
> of things it could test, I just wanted to show this isn't hard.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard

Ok, this looks like a good start for me to continue working on.

What is the easiest way to execute the useradd selftest?

//Peter

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 11:46 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> Ok, this looks like a good start for me to continue working on.
> 
> What is the easiest way to execute the useradd selftest?

oe-selftest --run-tests useradd.Useradd.test_useradd

Cheers,

Richard