rename fedora-usermgmt?

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:07:42PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 05.03.2007 12:32, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:47:41PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >>On 3/4/07, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >>>>Once upon a time Sunday 04 March 2007, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >>>>>Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>>>>I see fedora-usermgmt has been made available for EPEL. That is
> >>>>>>probably going to cause some confusion. Maybe rename it into
> >>>>>>system-usermgmt or something more distribution neutral. The other
> >>>>>>packages except for fedora-ds-base are all indeed specific to Fedora.
> >>>>>Why don't we just remove it?
> >>>>Mike, i know you hate it :) but alot of packages use it.
> >>>More packages don't use it and no packages in RHEL use it.  I'll stop
> >>>now, I don't want to be "that guy" :-D
> >>Can I be that guy. Personally I think F-U-M has caused me more
> >>problems moving apps over into an enterprise environment. Trying to
> >>get packages installed before LDAP is up etc and having to deal with
> >>oh look clamav is now the same as Johnny the Hacker.
> >
> >FWIW I hate it, too, anyone here around with other feelings for that?
> >Maybe we're all "that guy" ;)
> >
> >Anyway please kill and *ban* it, we should endorse using that mechanism.
> >
> >If an application really needs a fixed uid/gid let's provide it one
> >and let's fix the uid/gid 100-499 space being eaten from low to high
> >(high to low would be 1000x better) which is dangling for years. If
> >non-fixed system account had been assigned 499 lowwards then we'd have
> >now space to extend to say uid/gid 200 ...
> 
> Just my 2 cent: Yes, we need to find a solution, whatever that might 
> look like. Writing and enforcing a fedora-usermgmt successor could be 
> one,

not really, it moves the problem from a global one to a site-specific
one. We need to deal with it on a global scale.

> extending the UID/GID space another one. Someone just needs to drive
> the whole issue forward and get it approved by the Fedora community,
> FPC and FESCo.

I'd vote for thl, go thl, go! :)

> But the current mix of using fedora-usermgmt in some packages and
> not using it in others just sucks.

That's why we should allow it to infest the RHEL world, too.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20070305/5acf8c69/attachment.sig>