On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:18 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:56:46AM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 10.01.2018 um 11:46 schrieb Jan Kurik: >> >On existing systems, to make upgrades easier: >> >* if nfsnobody was defined, keep it in /etc/passwd *after* the new >> >line for nobody:nobody, so that both the old name and the new name map >> >to the same numbers >> >* if nobody user or group with number 99 was defined, keep it in >> >/etc/passwd and /etc/group, but rename to _nobody >> that don't make updates easier but breaks existing setups where >> nobody:nobody with 99:99 already owns files - don't touch long years >> running machines due dist-upgrades please - at least not with "dnf >> --releasever=28 distro-sync" > > That'd amount to leaving existing systems unchanged. That's an option > that I didn't like and initially rejected, but yeah, it's probably better. > I'll wait a bit more for feedback and update the proposal a bit later > to leave existing systems alone (i.e. systems which have either nobody > or nfsnobody already defined in the old style). > > Zbyszek This is particularly relevant for rsync or tar restorations from old backups, and to NFS shares exposed across old and new environments. It's why changing active uid and and gid for any account can be perniciously awkward. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
