On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani <aep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 18 July 2008 10:46:17 RedShift wrote: >> > I don't see why people have such an issue with creating UIDs/GIDs out >> > of the box. I don't have a problem with it, as long as we don't do it >> > on every flippin package under the sun. Is it possible to use 'nobody' >> > for snort, or is there a security risk there too? >> >> What if I want to run snort under for example "security_user". Now I have a >> cluttered passwd file due to the post-install script. And if I manually >> remove the snort user, the pre-remove will probably error out too. >> >> Glenn > > What about just giving up this useless discussion with people who don't even > agree on the base concept? > > - They like the out of the box experience. > - They disrespect the upstream. > - They disrespect their own policies. > - They assume every user is a retard. > - They don't maintain production servers. > - This shit is continuing silently without notice anyway. > > I strongly believe that keeping the heat up here, just blocks arch from > getting more "new" users and devs, which is what they obviously want, and at > the same time doesn't really help us having working machines. I suggest doing > what has to be done: fork. We need to unpatch packages localy anyway in order > to make them work, so i suggest just uploading those packages to a common > repo. Woah... you need a tissue?
