On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:34:34PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > The Packaging committee has been discussing users and groups for a long > time, coming up with increasingly elaborate methods of solving the > problems with dynamic allocation of uids. > > As an alternative we want to explore biting the bullet and just > allocating another uid range for static assignment. > We thought of two possible ways to do this that made some sense: > > 1) Allocate the uids at the high end of the 32 bit range: 2**32-(range) > to avoid the uids being used on as many systems as possible. > > 2) Work with another distro to share the range of static uids. > > What do people think of this? Will it cause pain for too many sites? > Is it an acceptable cost to avoid having to debate dynamic vs static > uids for every package review in the future? Ville's proposal was fine, what are we really trying to fix that will force us to break with FHS and several large sites? If static uids are ***really*** required for a networked application, then you don't only have to coordinate with "another distro", but with all of them as well as all Unices, so it's a lost cause to start with. And if one argues that one doesn't need the same uid/gid on all systems to start a Unix-global registry, then why doe Fedora need it? Don't fix something that isn't broken. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpiMWKAGiBqk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
