Aaaah, now i see what you're getting at :o) You explained it pretty well, I just didnt cotton on to the fact that you were using 60,000 as an arbitrary number. I spose we'll have to wait and see how the RFE goes - hopefully there is some sort of solution implemented whether its the high / low stuff or the uniqueness or something else Redhat come up with. <div>On 01/12/05, Robin Laing <<a href="mailto:Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca">Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Dave Brown wrote: > I have had a look at the RFE you filed and to be honest i disagree with > the way you have asked for it to be fixed. By selecting the GIDs in > decending order from 60,000 down and the uid ascending from 500 there > still exists the possibility for these 2 numbers to collide if you have > more than 59500 users / groups. Granted this is a large number but for > big institutions / companies this isnt unreasonable. I personally have > worked with two installations that this numbering scheme would have > caused problems. > > I believe that the underlying code should be changed so that when adding > a user the lowest available number which is not currently used by either > a group or user should be the one selected. That way you can have as > many users as you want (up to 2^32 of course :o) without running into > any clashes. > > I will add a note to your RFE explaining my thoughts and see what RedHat > reckon. Thanks for your input. > > Cheers > Dave > > On 26/11/05, *Robin Laing * < <a href="mailto:Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca">Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca">Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca</a>>> wrote: > > Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-24-11 at 09:31 +0000, Dave Brown wrote: > > > >>Robin / Others - what do you think? Depending on the general > consensus > >>I'll probably submit a feature enhancement request. > > > > > > If you do enter a RFE, can you send a reply to this thread with > bugzilla > > #? I'd like to watch it since I've recently run into this problem - > > it's a major pain in the ass. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ranbir > > > > I entered an RFE this afternoon. > Bug 174205 > > Robin. > Some times I am not that good at explaining things. I have added to the RFE taking your comments into account as you will see. I am reposting some of my comments here for the list. I used 60,00 as an arbitrary number. If Fedora can work with 2^32 GID's then change 60,000 to 2^32 and work from there. It isn't a big deal. The idea is to search from high to low for GID's and low to high for UID/GID combos. This also minimizes any holes in the UID/GID mix unless users are deleted. Thanks for the suggestion. -- fedora-list mailing list <a href="mailto:fedora-list@redhat.com">fedora-list@redhat.com </a> To unsubscribe: <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list</a> </blockquote></div>