+1

+1

At first I read the remove passwd part and was confused. Then I realized the new shadow-utils provides the passwd executable. 🙃

+1

@thalman most of the work is listed for "Other developers". Have you talked with the maintainers and have they signed up to do this work? @kzak, @jkucera, wdyt?

Changes in the dependent packages (esp. util-liux) must be done before the package is dropped.

-1 until those questions are answered.

Oh, the Change description confuses two different verbs: "deprecate" and "drop". When you say "drop", people will generally assume this means "retire the package". But "deprecate" is pretty much the opposite: mark the package as deprecated, but keep it in the distro. Please clarify and adjust the text.

I have no problem with the change; it's already planned. Tomas Halman talked about it with me in January.

The current rawhide:

• Thu May 18 2023 Karel Zak kzak@redhat.com - 2.39-1
• upgrade to v2.39
• remove dependence on libuser
• remove util-linux-user subpackage

@thalman most of the work is listed for "Other developers". Have you talked with the maintainers and have they signed up to do this work? @kzak, @jkucera, wdyt?

Changes in the dependent packages (esp. util-liux) must be done before the package is dropped.

-1 until those questions are answered.

Yes I talked with the developers to estimate the work.

Oh, the Change description confuses two different verbs: "deprecate" and "drop". When you say "drop", people will generally assume this means "retire the package". But "deprecate" is pretty much the opposite: mark the package as deprecated, but keep it in the distro. Please clarify and adjust the text.

I see, I created the page with LibuserDeprecation name. It is confusing but I'm not sure if I can rename the page. Can I do it now without breaking some automation? This is really about removing it from Fedora base OS.

Based on e-mail discussion I suggest to get rid of dependencies and move libuser into EPEL repository. I can maintain the package there for now. The change proposal is updated accordingly.

How is EPEL related to a Fedora Change Proposal at all?

And given that this is now for a different thing (removal instead of deprecation), I'm not sure whether we should restart the discussion, since most people read "deprecation" and think that nothing will change for them ...

How is EPEL related to a Fedora Change Proposal at all?

I see, my bad - I live in the CentOS world. I somehow get to wrong conclusion that such repo exists for Fedora too. Sorry for the confusion

In this case I think that "Deprecation" in next Fedora is the right thing. We can get rid of dependencies as soon as possible (now) and keep libuser available for the cases mentioned in the thread to give people time to adapt.

Then we can stop shipping it in next release (f40?).

Does it make sense?

Yeah, there's no such thing as "EPF" :)

Deprecating in F39 and planning for removal in F40 sounds like a reasonable timeline to me, given that there's only a small number of affected packages. If others agree, it would be great to have the proposal amended.

WFM.

I have updated the proposal accordingly.
Tom

And given that this is now for a different thing (removal instead of deprecation), I'm not sure whether we should restart the discussion, since most people read "deprecation" and think that nothing will change for them ...

I don't think so. The updates proposal is a subset of the original (or clarification, depending on how you understood the previous version).

+1 to the updated version.

Looks good to me. +1 to the amended version, thanks!

+1 to the current amended version

We're at (+5,0,0) right now. SInce the proposal was changed, let's wait for the full week to run since that point before summing up.

+1

After a week:
APPROVED (+6, 0, 0)

Announced.