From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp08.online.nl (unknown [194.134.42.53]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD5865E87 for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp08.online.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp08.online.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373AF6630C for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 17:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (s55969068.adsl.online.nl [85.150.144.104]) by smtp08.online.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 17:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53762907.8060600@topic.nl> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:04:39 +0200 From: Mike Looijmans Organization: Topic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Online-Scanned: by Cloudmark authority (on smtp08.online.nl) Subject: Living without shadow X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 15:04:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Any package that wants to add user accounts (e.g. dbus) automatically installs the "shadow" package into the image. This appears to be done by adduser.bbclass. We want to keep it small, and can easily live without the shadow package. Busybox already provides adduser and similar commands, and also handles login etc. just fine. So I tried adding a line RPROVIDES_busybox+="shadow" to the busybox recipe. I would expect to have an alternative provider now, and no more forces installation of the big shadow. The result was much more surprising though. Letting busybox provide "shadow" resulted in failing to build the rootfs. The "adduser" command did not work on the host. This was very unexpected - does shadow deliver something into the sysroot that adduser.bbclass needs? How can I get rid of the shadow package? -- Mike Looijmans