mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx (Matthew Miller) writes: >> > 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, ... or using the fedora-usermgmt approach where every system administrator can decide whether he wants semi-fixed uids and where he can configure a free uid-range which is used for it. > which is worse. Note that the LSB doesn't say "must" -- it says > "should", so it's a recommendation, not a requirement. Yes, it is only a recommendation. But should we violate it when alternative solutions are existing? The count of 200 free UIDs seems to be a little bit low for me; almost every package with a daemon will require an own user so we will fill the claimed 300-499 space in a few years. Or -- why do not we take the 500-999 area and let normal users begin at 1000 (latter is already the case e.g. in Debian)? There the same situation will arise: there might be conflicts with existing installations (like with the 300-499 or any other fixed range), but as Seth says: "Change your uid and chown all your files. This is the nature of legacy." Enrico
Attachment:
pgpv2znu49y2X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
