On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 11:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:52:56 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 01:54 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: > > > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 13:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > In the meantime, the Packaging Guidelines should be updated to clarify > > > > when use of fedora-usermngt is warranted. I realize there's some > > > > controversy involved, so should FESCO get involved to officially > > > > bless/veto the use of fedora-usermngt? > > > > > > Yes please. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines <-- I fail > to find fedora-usermgmt in there. It's not mentioned in the Packaging > Guidelines either. Just to further make this point: You do not have to use fedora-usermgmt. You can use it if you would like to, but it is NOT required. No review should be held up solely on the inclusion of fedora-usermgmt. I've considered making a policy of "no hardcoding UID/GID" in the spec, but that is a different issue (and the package in question is not hardcoding UID/GID). Since UID_MIN is 500, using useradd -r will not stomp on the fedora-usermgmt packages for at least the next hundred+ fedora package that use it. And no, I really don't want to get into another round of arguments over this. There are valid reasons on both sides to use both mechanisms, so I'm not going to force anyone to either mechanism, nor do I plan to make either mechanism the "official" mechanism anytime soon. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
