with or without fedora-usermgmt

[Peter Vrabec]

Hi folks,

Don't you think somebody should make some decision here:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-March/msg00124.html
- flame, but possible pros and cons can be find there
My opinion is not to use fedora-usermgmt.

Note there is  possible problem we can reach. We can ran out of
static UID(0-100), can't we.
----------
# (repoquery --whatrequires shadow-utils; repoquery
--whatrequires /usr/sbin/useradd --whatrequires fedora-usermgmt) | sed
's/-[[:digit:]].*//' | sort -u | wc -l 
100
----------
I think most packages should use dynamic UID (range 100 - 499) and
there should be some policy for which packages are allowed to have
static UID. I have a patch for useradd and groupadd that they start
assigning dynamic UID from 499 way down to 0. What is it good for?
Maybe for nothing. :-) But if we run out of static UID one day, it
would be good to have gap between static and dynamic UID. We will have
to change the range of static ones for example to 0-200 and there is a
problem(100-200) during upgrade. Less systems affected with this is
better, even thou the solution need to be find. 
And maybe I'm wrong, anyway.