On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:27:42PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx) said:
> >
> >>Or bite the bullet and reserve a new fixed uid range
> >>
> >
> >+100
> >
> >Just do it, have a registry. When we get to a situation that requires 500
> >separate system UIDs, we'll deal with it then. I don't want to be
> >the "640k should be enough for everyone" guy, but I'd have to think that
> >by the time we get to that point, we will have gone way beyond the
> >point of diminishing returns in additional packages.
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >
> Just so we do know the numbers:
> $ repoquery --whatrequires '/usr/sbin/useradd' --qf='%{name}' | sort |
> uniq | wc -l
> 54
I get more like 126:
# (repoquery --whatrequires shadow-utils; repoquery --whatrequires
/usr/sbin/useradd) | sort -u | wc -l
Many packages like rpm, ntp, mlocate etc don't have a file dependency,
but a package dependency.
So with the currently reserved 500 system uid/gids we are already
rather fine.
The questions is do any of these packages really need *fixed*
uid/gids? I really doubt it. But for whatever its worth let's raise
the fixed/non-fixed cross-over from uid/gid 100 to 200 for F8 or F9.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPuQ1ulLIqf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
