Re: removing "su" from coreutils [Re: Fwd: [PULL] su

P=E1draig Brady wrote:
...
>> Hi P=E1draig,
>>
>> Thanks for forwarding that.
>>
>> I would like to remove su.c, if/when possible from coreutils.
>> The last time I proposed that, the Hurd was mentioned as a
>> reason not to, since they relied on the su from coreutils.
>>
>> Is that still the case, and if so, can you (the Hurd) switch
>> to the one from util-linux?
>>
>
> Well it's not clear cut to me, given that su
> isn't really Linux specific.

Right, but how many non-Linux-based systems rely on coreutils' su?
When this last came up, that the Hurd needed it was a deciding factor
(along with Fedora/Suse, of course).

> Note Fedora and Suse use su from coreutils

Sure, but the point of the message you forwarded seemed to be that
Fedora and Suse might soon have a good incentive to use the su from
util-linux, rather than from coreutils.

> while debian use their own:
> http://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/
>
> Note also Fedora has `runuser` which is based on su:
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=3Dcoreutils.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dcore=
utils-8.7-runuser.patch;hb=3DHEAD
>
> There was also a very related request for
> `runuser` like functionality to be generally available:
> http://bugs.gnu.org/8700

I wouldn't mind adding such a program to the list of things
coreutils installs by default.  So far, no one has volunteered
to do the work.

> It's probably worth bringing runuser with su,
> no matter where they end up.