On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Tim Serong wrote: > On 04/16/2015 03:14 AM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> On 04/14/2015 09:21 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > >>> I think we still want them to be static across a distro; it's the > >>> cross-distro change that will be relatively rare. So a fixed ID from each > >>> distro family ought to be okay? > >> > >> Sounds sane to me. I've filed https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524 to > >> request one from Fedora. > > > > I have now requested the same for Debian. If the request is granted we > > will most likely get the uid/gid 64045. Maybe others could use the same. > > It seems that only Debian has a range of reserved ids for this purpose. > > I would expect Ubuntu to use the same id, but that's up to them finally. > > Fedora has rejected the request for a static UID (see > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524#comment:16), and I haven't made Gah! It looks like they were confusing the cross-distro issue. I'll go beg that they reconsider. :( > much progress on the SUSE front. I did suggest everyone just do what > Debian does ;) but both Fedora and SUSE people pointed out that the 64K > range isn't safe to claim, what with not being specifically reserved. > > I did make one small bit of progress - I've added the ceph user and > group to rpmlint on openSUSE Factory > (https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/303537) so at least the SUSE > build won't bitch if files specified in any of the packages are owned by > ceph:ceph. Thanks! sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
