On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 12:08:32PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote: > > for Fedora Extras packages. We could make it start at 300 to be less > > likely to conflict with random "useradd -r" done earlier. > Assigning fixed IDs in this range would violate LSB which states > > | The system User IDs from 100 to 499 should be reserved for dynamic > | allocation by system administrators and post install scripts using > | useradd. > [http://www.linuxbase.org/spec//book/LSB-generic/LSB-generic/uidrange.html] Well, that leaves us with stuffing Extras system UIDs into 0-99, or violating the above-500 space, which is worse. Note that the LSB doesn't say "must" -- it says "should", so it's a recommendation, not a requirement. Since we've got a need that's not really covered, goint against this recommendation is better than having the worse problem of dynamic system IDs (a nightmare for upgrades and for enterprise deployment). > That's why it would be a bad idea when Fedora Extras claims fixed UIDs > there. I agree with you that every large organisation has its assigned > UID ranges and it will not be possible to find a free range which can be > assigned to Fedora Extras. > > Perhaps we could find such a range in the 32bit UID space which is allowed > by Linux; but I am not sure whether we cause portability problems. OpenAFS makes this same (wrong) assumption that the higher numbers present some sort of unused dumping ground. The 32-bit UID space isn't a bunch of secret numbers for fun to play with. It's needed because some places actually require that many accounts. Let's not go there. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> Current office temperature: 77 degrees Fahrenheit. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
