Fedora User Management (revisited)

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 22:01 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> It is not a "blind adherence" but an adherence that existing systems
> should not be broken. You can not use range 100-499 for static uids
> because existing systems are having already uids in this range.

I always had in mind that if the assigned userid was already taken when
a package is installed, useradd would fall back on allocating a dynamic
ID. Statically assigned IDs are going to have to be on a "best effort"
basis. (I could have sworn it had a flag for this...)

On a clean, freshly installed Fedora system all packages will get their
assigned IDs.

If an assigned ID is taken, just fall back on a dynamic ID in the
dynamic range, which will leave these systems no worse off then they
were already.

Best effort. Best effort. Best effort.

If its not self evident by now, yes, this situation sucks. There's not
going to be a perfect solution. (Actually, moving to using 128 bit
UUIDs, would solve a lot of problems... (And create a bunch of others,
like interoperability...)) No matter what we do, its still going to suck
for someone. It is just a matter of who.
-------------- 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/20070314/424d7df4/attachment.sig>