[Libosinfo] [PATCH] Revert "debian: Allow empty passwords"

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

Hi,

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> <zeeshanak at gnome.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> The workaround that has been used so for doesn't work.
>>>
>>> For the user account, the password is indeed removed in the end of the
>>> installation, but then login in from GDM is impossible. Although it
>>> works from a VT,
>>
>> You mean after you logout and then get dropped to GDM? Which would
>> explain why it's hard to notice. If that's the case, are you sure we
>> don't have the same issue with Fedora?
>
> The issue is, the system is installed, reboots and then you're at GDM
> screen. There you simply can _not_ login.

Ah ok but then it affects all users and I'm a bit confused what you
meant by the following sentence to this: "this is not something
obvious that every user would try."

> I don't know if it affects Fedora, I didn't test Fedora and not sure
> when I'll have time for that. maybe it's broken there as well.

I doubt it, if it's so badly broken.

>>>this is not something obvious that every user would
>>> try. So, requiring the user password seems the best to do for now and
>>> when another workaround is found the user password can be set to
>>> optional again.
>>
>> Hmm.. Boxes might not be taking into account scripts requiring password.
>
> Well, that's something to be fixed on Boxes, not on libosinfo.

Of course, I was just reminding. :)

>>> For the root account, the password is not removed in the of the
>>> installation and ends up being set as "dummyPa55w0rd", something that
>>> the user would never guess, unless they have access to the libosinfo
>>> code. So, requiring the admin password seems the best to do for now and
>>> when another workaround is found the admin password can be set to
>>> optional again.
>>
>> I think the most important thing is to find out why the workaround is
>> not working. Could it be that it used to work but broken in recently
>> debian versions?
>
> I also don't know if it used to work before.

Well it's pretty unlikely that Lasse would have marked a workaround as
"working" without testing it. I'm not sure if I tested this exactly
but I did some testing of Debian then.

> You acked this patch, can
> you tell me in which version of Debian you have tested it?

That was 2 years ago so no, I can't. I'll bet on the latest stable
debian release at the time.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)