On Tue, 24.05.11 12:20, Simo Sorce (simo@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > * AFAIK, we actually have not run into the 500 uid limit yet (although > > it is a bit low to be comfortable) > > * AFAIK, we've only allocated the range 0-100 for reserved IDs. > > * The 0-100 reserved IDs are actually the pain point that we need to > > deal with, not the dynamic system ids in the 101-499 range. > > * We don't know how many, if any IDs this actually gets us for the > > dynamic range because any site that has already filled the 500-1000 > > UID range won't gain any extra dynamic system account through this > > change. > > * This could potentially break sites that are currently using the > > 500-1000 UID range and rely on the order of allocation of UIDs for > > their users on new machines matching with the UIDs on old machines. > > (For instance, NFS UIDs on filesystems matching between a box > > installed with RHEL5 and a box that gets newly installed with F16). > > You need to force UIDs in that case anyway, and if you are not using > something like NIS or LDAP then you have to mange that manually anyways, > so I wouldn't make that a stopper for this very welcome change. I agree that this chnage is very welcome, because it allows us to remove one further difference between the various distributions. Thank you, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
