On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:47 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Peter Vrabec wrote: > > > > We can also annouce the 200 limit for reserved IDs. ;) > > > > > > We can't just make changes to this range. Especially not in the lower > > > end of it. (and if we change the dynamic system account range to > > > extend higher, we also can't use the 500-1000 range for that. > > This change has already happened. If it was done without any harm, I consider > > that a good job. :) > > > To be clear, this change has only happened in rawhide with your last commit > so it's a bit early to tell what harm there is. With the clarification that > the dynamic UID range has started allocating at the top instead of the > bottom in 2007, it makes a lot more sense that we can make this change. Are > you sure you only want to allocate 0-200, though? Remember that the static > assignments are our limited resource, perhaps you want to go higher than > that? I guess Peter was talking about this 0-200 static ID reservation threshold change - and it happened in Fedora 12 (setup-2.8.7-1.fc12) with no reported complaints or conflicts so far. Yes, static assignments are limited resource and it probably makes sense to increase it even a bit further , however - in ~2 years since the change of the threshold to 200, 15 static new uid's were assigned. So if the trend will continue, there is enough free id's for reservation for ~5-10 years - so the threshold at 200 seems to be enough atm (especially if the dynamically assigned system id's assignments are going from the highest limit down). Ondrej Vasik -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
