14139 2020-12-01 11:47:26 +0000 systemd user/groups different on opkg vs rpm images 2026-10-29 15:28:13 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime OE-Core core 3.4 x86 Multiple NEW Medium+ normal 6.2 M1 14137 1 ross.burton unassigned hongxu.jia liezhi.yang louis.rannou meta.mr.watcher meta.watcher paul randy.macleod ross.burton tgamblin tim.orling --- --- No (bug/feature does not impact docs) oldest_to_newest 88696 0 ross.burton 2020-12-01 11:47:26 +0000 If you build core-image-minimal with both rpms and opks and compare the images, there are some curious differences: │ ├── ./etc/gshadow │ │ @@ -39,10 +39,10 @@ │ │ games:*:: │ │ shutdown:*:: │ │ users:*:: │ │ systemd-bus-proxy:!:: │ │ systemd-timesync:!:: │ │ systemd-resolve:!:: │ │ systemd-network:!:: │ │ -systemd-journal:x:: │ │ +systemd-journal:!:: │ │ messagebus:!:: │ │ nogroup:*:: │ ├── ./etc/shadow │ │ @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ │ │ uucp:*::0:99999:7::: │ │ proxy:*::0:99999:7::: │ │ www-data:*::0:99999:7::: │ │ backup:*::0:99999:7::: │ │ list:*::0:99999:7::: │ │ irc:*::0:99999:7::: │ │ gnats:*::0:99999:7::: │ │ -systemd-bus-proxy:!::0:99999:7::: │ │ -systemd-timesync:!::0:99999:7::: │ │ -systemd-resolve:!::0:99999:7::: │ │ -systemd-network:!::0:99999:7::: │ │ -messagebus:!::0:99999:7::: │ │ +systemd-bus-proxy:!::::::: │ │ +systemd-timesync:!::::::: │ │ +systemd-resolve:!::::::: │ │ +systemd-network:!::::::: │ │ +messagebus:!::::::: │ │ nobody:*::0:99999:7::: These files should be identical. 88698 1 ross.burton 2020-12-01 12:11:15 +0000 There's a pattern: RPM has: systemd-journal:!:: systemd-bus-proxy:!::::::: systemd-timesync:!::::::: systemd-resolve:!::::::: systemd-network:!::::::: messagebus:!::::::: OPKG and DPKG have: systemd-journal:x:: systemd-bus-proxy:!::0:99999:7::: systemd-timesync:!::0:99999:7::: systemd-resolve:!::0:99999:7::: systemd-network:!::0:99999:7::: messagebus:!::0:99999:7::: 88712 2 ross.burton 2020-12-03 15:41:14 +0000 My guess is that this is somewhere deep in the rootfs generation, and is not specific to systemd. My test image was core-image-minimal which doesn't have many users in the image. 95655 3 louis.rannou 2023-06-08 14:08:56 +0000 According to the useradd manual, system users should have no aging information (0 is the minimum password age, 99999 the maximum and 7 the warning period). In that way, it does mean the rpm is more correct than the ipk. But if you look at the whole file (not only the diff), it appears that most of system users contain aging information in both ipk and rpm. It looks like it really depends on the distribution. On my personal archlinux, there is no aging information in /etc/shadow. On my debian/ubuntu containers, there are when I install a package such as avahi-daemon. There are none if I run the useradd command manually. I haven't tried on Fedora. So far, I looked at the rpm and ipk packages and I found no difference in the the install scripts. They both call the useradd command with the PSEUDO prefix. I did not find any relevant difference in the recipe-sysroot-native. I suspect something hidden occurs inside ipk/deb packages. 95656 4 louis.rannou 2023-06-08 14:18:14 +0000 I think we can make the relations below: 1. Packages defined in base-passwd => have aging information (no difference between ipk and rpm) 2. Normal packages created with useradd through the class useradd => have aging information (expected behavior) 3. System packages created with useradd through the class useradd (with option --system): rpm: no aging information ipk: have aging information 96077 5 randy.macleod 2023-07-26 21:22:02 +0000 Bulk move of 64 bugs to 4.3 M3 after a quick review. If a bug is actually fixed, please add a commit link and resolve it. -- Randy for YP bug team. 96468 6 tgamblin 2023-09-14 16:37:22 +0000 Moved to M4. 97073 7 randy.macleod 2023-10-30 15:29:12 +0000 Bulk move to 5.0 M1. -- Randy 97675 8 randy.macleod 2023-12-21 23:28:29 +0000 Bulk move of 52 5.0-M1 bugs to M2. 97995 9 randy.macleod 2024-01-25 14:28:46 +0000 Bulk move of bugs owned by "unassigned" from 5.0-M2 to 5.0-M3. 98299 10 randy.macleod 2024-02-22 19:53:22 +0000 Bulk move of bugs from 5.0-M3 to 5.99. The bugs in this list are all unassigned and are ones that I consider to be nice to do some time but not essential track from milestone to milestone in 5.0 or 5.1. We agreed on this bug handling approach in the YP bug review on Feb 22, 2024. If you disagree, please move back to a 5.[012...]-M* milestone. 105239 11 randy.macleod 2026-04-23 15:30:19 +0000 Ross will check if it's still happening on master. 105241 12 ross.burton 2026-04-23 16:34:08 +0000 Confirmed with almost-6.0. deb and ipkg generate /etc/shadow lines that look like this for systemd: systemd-network:!:15069:0:99999:7::: whereas rpm generates: systemd-network:!:15069:::::: 105260 13 ross.burton 2026-04-24 16:14:47 +0000 So the difference is that when useradd runs, rpm images have /etc/shadow but ipk/deb images do not. 105261 14 ross.burton 2026-04-24 16:56:43 +0000 /etc/shadow is created by the shadow package's postinst calling pwconf. With RPM builds this happens quite early, but it does not happen before other packages using useradd with ipk.