Closed alejandro-colomar closed 3 months ago
I'm in favor of removing duplicate programs, which would reduce maintenance work, unless there are good reasons to keep them. Does anyone know of any reasons to keep these programs around?
In general terms I'm not against having several projects providing the same functionality. They may have slight differences that make it worth maintaining two or more implementations. As an example, and from what I heard, busybox is tuned for systems with limited resources like embedded systems.
Debian uses the GNU coreutils binaries. I don't know what other distros do.
Fedora also uses id
and groups
binaries provided by coreutils.
Both coreutils/groups and shadow/groups have no options at all, so they should be identical. coreutils/id has a superset of shadow/id 's options (shadow only has
-a
).
From this analysis it seems like shadow's implementation is simpler and doesn't provide any additional options.
In addition, Debian and Fedora use coreutils implementation, so I'm in favour of deprecating and removing those binaries from this project.
@thesamesam Any comments from Gentoo?
Debian uses the GNU coreutils binaries. I don't know what other distros do.
openSUSE also uses groups
and id
from coreutils.
Related: https://github.com/shadow-maint/shadow/issues/999 Cc: @dkwo, @jubalh, @hallyn, @ikerexxe
coreutils/id and coreutils/groups have existed since back in 1992:
busybox/id has existed since 2000:
busybox/groups has existed since 2011:
Both coreutils/groups and shadow/groups have no options at all, so they should be identical. coreutils/id has a superset of shadow/id 's options (shadow only has
-a
).Debian uses the GNU coreutils binaries. I don't know what other distros do.
I'm in favor of removing duplicate programs, which would reduce maintenance work, unless there are good reasons to keep them. Does anyone know of any reasons to keep these programs around?