Deluser: deleting the home folder
Laszlo Papp
lpapp at kde.org
Mon Aug 4 17:10:40 UTC 2014
Denys, could you please provide feedback here?
1) Do you appreciate the feature?
2) If yes, which option would you like to see for it?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> This patch was sent to the mailing list two weeks ago without further
> comment from the maintainer...
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:28 PM, tito <farmatito at tiscali.it> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 03 July 2014 22:38:23 you wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:31 PM, tito <farmatito at tiscali.it> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Thursday 03 July 2014 14:51:11 you wrote:
>>> > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:59 PM, tito <farmatito at tiscali.it>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Thursday 03 July 2014 13:03:46 Laszlo Papp wrote:
>>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > commit 761fd153e340a14abccc0af89f2f6617faf2077f
>>> > > > > > > Author: Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org>
>>> > > > > > > Date: Thu Jul 3 11:06:58 2014 +0100
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Add optional home directory removal support to deluser
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > diff --git a/loginutils/deluser.c b/loginutils/deluser.c
>>> > > > > > > index e39ac55..67b744b 100644
>>> > > > > > > --- a/loginutils/deluser.c
>>> > > > > > > +++ b/loginutils/deluser.c
>>> > > > > > > @@ -11,9 +11,10 @@
>>> > > > > > > */
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > //usage:#define deluser_trivial_usage
>>> > > > > > > -//usage: "USER"
>>> > > > > > > +//usage: "[-h] USER"
>>> > > > > > > //usage:#define deluser_full_usage "\n\n"
>>> > > > > > > //usage: "Delete USER from the system"
>>> > > > > > > +//usage: "\n -h Remove the home directory"
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > //usage:#define delgroup_trivial_usage
>>> > > > > > > //usage: IF_FEATURE_DEL_USER_FROM_GROUP("[USER]
>>> ")"GROUP"
>>> > > > > > > @@ -35,11 +36,15 @@ int deluser_main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> > > > > > > /* Name of shadow or gshadow file */
>>> > > > > > > const char *sfile;
>>> > > > > > > /* Are we deluser or delgroup? */
>>> > > > > > > + struct passwd *pw = 0;
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > This could probably be one line below not to distract the
>>> comment and
>>> > > > > > corresponding variable declaration. Although, ideally, this
>>> would
>>> > > need to
>>> > > > > > go to the "case 2" branch, but I did not want to introduce a
>>> new
>>> > > block
>>> > > > > > there with re-indenting many lines. Also, do you prefer "NULL"
>>> > > instead of
>>> > > > > > "0"?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Let me know what the preferred style is...
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > The patch is tested with and without "-h" and it works. The
>>> option
>>> > > > > > selection is "-h" which reminds some people the canonical
>>> "help",
>>> > > but on
>>> > > > > > the contrary, this is also what is used for adduser to create
>>> the
>>> > > home
>>> > > > > > directory, so I picked it up for being consistent. Again, let
>>> me know
>>> > > > > your
>>> > > > > > preference ...
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Hi,
>>> > > > > couldn't we change -h as it conflicts with -h/--help and use -r
>>> as in
>>> > > > > --remove-home:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Well, I prefer consistency, otherwise it will become to
>>> effectively use
>>> > > the
>>> > > > applets. After all, if you do not type anything, you will get the
>>> help
>>> > > > output, or misuse it, so why would we bloat the applet code with
>>> that?
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Hi,
>>> > > where is the bloat in doing:
>>> > >
>>> > > //usage:#define deluser_trivial_usage
>>> > > -//usage: "USER"
>>> > > +//usage: "[-r] USER"
>>> > > //usage:#define deluser_full_usage "\n\n"
>>> > > //usage: "Delete USER from the system"
>>> > > +//usage: "\n -r Remove the home directory"
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > That does not make sense to me, I am afraid. It might be possible
>>> later to
>>> > remove other config data, too. It is probably not acceptable, thus it
>>> is
>>> > not done so even on desktop.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > and
>>> > >
>>> > > int do_delhome = 0;
>>> > > if (getopt32(argv, "r") & 1) { ++argv; --argc; do_delhome = 1; }
>>> > >
>>> > > or maybe simply:
>>> > >
>>> > > int do_delhome = getopt32(argv, "r"):
>>> > > argc -= optind;
>>> > > argv += optind;
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > This looks worse than a simple increment to me, but it is such a minor
>>> > detail that I do not think it is too relevant.
>>> >
>>> > -h is nice and consistent. I do not know why you would want help
>>> option two
>>> > when it only has one option. You would double the option number. It
>>> would
>>> > be an overkill in this case.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I want not to double the number of options I just suggest to use
>>> -r instead of -h because:
>>>
>>
>> As already replied, -r is not clear an option. I was thinking about -h
>> and --remove-home in the beginning. I think anything else is bad choice
>> because it is inconsistent with the rest of the world. I prefer local
>> consistency within busybox, this I picked up -h, but if Denys would like to
>> avoid that local consistency, I suggest --remove-home to at least have some
>> consistency, namely with the desktop.
>>
>>
>>> 1) -h is mostly used for help (with a few exceptions I am aware of).
>>> 2) on the desktop:
>>> a) deluser uses --remove-home ( Remove the home directory of
>>> the user and its mailspool)
>>> b) userdel uses -r, --remove (Files in the user's home directory
>>> will be removed along with the
>>> home directory
>>> itself and the user's mail spool.)
>>> therefore using -r would be consistent and logic to use.
>>>
>>
>> That is exactly why it would be inconsistent and not logical IMHO. "-r"
>> means remove "everything" and definitely not just home.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > By the way, I like the bikeshed pink. ;-)
>>>
>>> This was just a hint to reduce codesize,
>>> untested so I will not bet on it.
>>>
>>> int do_delhome = getopt32(argv, "r"):
>>> argc -= optind;
>>> argv += optind;
>>>
>>
>> I do not see any benefit of it for one option; it also seems to make the
>> code longer IMHO.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20140804/b2d96db3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the busybox
mailing list