Usercreation-policy

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 07:33, Enrico Scholz wrote:

> I agree with that, although it violates somehow the idea behind rpm
> (there is the same state after a 'rpm -U ...; rpm -e ...' transaction).
> 
> 

I am not sure if that has ever been anything but an ideal (or a user
misconception). We used to have fun with installing a release onto a
second drive and then doing an rpm -e of all the packages.. it was
amazing how many files do not belong to anything or are left behind. 

> 
> I think too, that most daemons need both a dedicated user and a dedicated
> group.
> 
> 

And if they dont... they are broke :) [IMHO].


Anyway, I think what is needed will be a mechanism for packagers to
request UID/GID numbers for their packages in the same way that groups
request static port numbers below 1024 through
I(something)(something)(something). The guidance committee would then
allocate those numbers and that would be that. I would do something
like:

0-100 Fedora Core daemons
101-250 Fedora Extra(s) etc
251-499 Fedora Dynamics.

Sure it isnt LSB, but if it were proposed to Debian etc so that they had
a say in it.. I dont think it would be a problem.

-- 
Stephen John Smoogen		smoogen at lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Labrador  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 4-0645 (note new #)
Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --