On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 14:11 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: > Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > vservers and chroots? Is this what this is all about? I'd say whoever > > setups vservers and chroots *himself* and keeps different passwd/group > > files across them should be able to deal with this. > > I did this. And it was a pain to deal with it. 'fedora-usermgmt' solved > this once and forever. I don't want to seem willing to attack you personally, but if you didn't think of synchronizing and rationalizing the uid/gid space, _before_ installing your shared environment, then that was just bad planning and poor handling of the process on your side. fedora-usermgmt may hide some of this, but still the bad planning is out there you are basically just hacking up a nasty patch for it. > >> 'fedora-usermgmt' deals both with users who must have predictable > >> uids, who need predictable uids under some circumstances and who > >> never need predictable uids (although: say never "never"). Its flaws > >> (causes lot of discussion, is proprietary, nobody else uses it) are > >> of non-technical nature and negligible and I do not see why it should > >> not be used for all users. > > > > That's your POV. Exactly a year ago there was the same discussion > > about it draining brain power and volunteer time. > > Yes; there posted lot of people too who never took a look at > fedora-usermgmt... :( The mechanism you described says it all, no need to try it, it is very clear what it does, and to many it is the wrong way to "fix" a deployment planning problem in specific situations. > > Since we can't count it, it needs to be weighted on a case by case > > basis. > > Why not use 'fedora-usermgmt'? Cause its base mechanism is logically flawed ? Simo. -- 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
