Fedora User Management (revisited)

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 11:16 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> writes:
> 
> > Indeed, most of the packages we're talking about (if not all) don't
> > need a fixed uid/gid at all.
> 
> When a package/daemon writes files and/or reads files which are protected
> by file permissions, it is a good candidate for fixed uids.

Okay this whole line of thought is total crackrock. Why do we need to
make value judgements over what packages deserve a fixed ID, and what
doesn't? If we're going to do fixed IDs at all, there's *no* reason we
can't do it for all packages. We run out of space in the 0-499 range
once there's 500 system users either way.

This might be better as Wiki discussion so that it can be properly
structured. There's way too many different issues being mixed up here.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070311/7c58c6a4/attachment.sig>