On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:47 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > > We can also annouce the 200 limit for reserved IDs. ;)
> >
> > We can't just make changes to this range. Especially not in the lower
> > end of it. (and if we change the dynamic system account range to
> > extend higher, we also can't use the 500-1000 range for that.
> This change has already happened. If it was done without any harm, I consider
> that a good job. :)
>
To be clear, this change has only happened in rawhide with your last commit
so it's a bit early to tell what harm there is. With the clarification that
the dynamic UID range has started allocating at the top instead of the
bottom in 2007, it makes a lot more sense that we can make this change. Are
you sure you only want to allocate 0-200, though? Remember that the static
assignments are our limited resource, perhaps you want to go higher than
that?
I guess Peter was talking about this 0-200 static ID reservation
threshold change - and it happened in Fedora 12 (setup-2.8.7-1.fc12)
with no reported complaints or conflicts so far.
Yes, static assignments are limited resource and it probably makes sense
to increase it even a bit further , however - in ~2 years since the
change of the threshold to 200, 15 static new uid's were assigned. So if
the trend will continue, there is enough free id's for reservation for
~5-10 years - so the threshold at 200 seems to be enough atm (especially
if the dynamically assigned system id's assignments are going from the
highest limit down).
Ondrej Vasik