rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx (Ralf Corsepius) writes: >> 2. some admins would like to have those UIDs created in a >> predictable/defined way > Here the question is: locally or network-wide? > > For local installation, you never need a predictable uid, all you need > is predictable id within a certain range of uids (You need an id "httpd" > with uid < 100 Why that? For local installations, the uid does not matter overall. The only special about the <100 range is, that LSB compliant packages can assign static uids there. > For a network wide installation, you'd need to have network-wide > consistent uid/ids. This doesn't necessarily mean using fixed ids, it > only means you'll have to have a way to propagate those uid/ids into > your network. Allocating a range of uids/ids is the most simplistic > and primitive way, but there are others (Note: you'd also have to > reserve ids (user names), otherwise they are candidates for clashes, > too). Yes, the name-clash is a problem which can not be solved by fedora-usermgmt. It can be solved partially at the package review level to choose "good" names. >> 3. you propose an add-on/wrapper package that allows to do this, but >> it is non-transparent: packages that want to use your mechanism >> must have a Require for fedora-adduser. Thus the packager makes >> the decision, not the admin > This is what I consider one fundamental flaw in Enrico's approach. He > tries to dictate what admins consider their task. This is wrong. When I dictate somebody, then the packager. For the admin, fedora-usermgmt is completely transparent and he will not notice fedora-usermgmt's existence (except from the package list). Enrico
Attachment:
pgpnxvmps11WA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
