thias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said: > That's the point : Fixed uid/gid is often a good thing, I have many setups > where a bunch of redundant servers access the same nfs share, and I'm in > trouble when I install packages on those servers which create a user with a > non fixed uid, and one gets say 201 and the other 202... > I'm really grateful to know I can expect apache to be uid 48 everywhere, for > instance. I think there are two cases: standalone machines, and machines that share data. For standalone machines, the only trouble is when they are re-installed or upgraded. If the old passwd file can still be read, the problem is easy to solve: just reuse the old UIDs. When the old passwd file is damaged: you are in trouble anyway: the user probably created a few accounts which contain files, and those accounts will need to be hand-recreated with the proper UID anyway... Having fixed UIDs helps some, but not that much. For machines that share data, IMHO the proper way is to put all accounts with distributed files in a UID management thing like LDAP or NIS. It doesn't buy you much that a few of those UIDs are fixed. Plus, people running such setups are supposed to be pretty knowledgeable about managing a local UID database. I'm still of the opinion that fixed UIDs don't solve much, and are not easy to manage. In a way, it seems things might be a bit simpler if a username->UID mapping was stored somewhere in the filesystem, at mount/fsck/umount time... Ah well, just daydreaming I guess :) Cheers, Christian -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
