On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:19:47 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:31:13PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Predictable means you can keep the uid/gid constant,
in a floating window.
Eh? What do you mean with "floating"? That you refuse to keep the base
value constant? Well, there are lots of other ways how to damage
installations.
"Constant" is the definition of a fixed uid. If there is
need for a
fixed uid, ask for one (yes, there _seems_ to be currently no space, but
that is another issue), if not use useradd -r.
And with useradd -r, how do you get the same uid/gid for a package on all
installations, when you want that?
> but still have an influence on where that is within your range
of
> values. Everytime you install a package again on a machine under
> control of a configured fedora-usermgmt, the package allocates the
> same uid/gid.
sure - oops, the admin forgot to configure fedora-usermgmt on machine
number 23. Now all uid/gid are messed up.
In the same way you can install the wrong distribution on machine number
23 e.g. because you insert the wrong media. ;) fedora-usermgmt setup can
be made available at installation time.
From any POV I look at it, this design is flawed ...
Hyperbole.
> The only alternative is useradd -u/groupadd -g with a larger
range of
> uids/gids from which to occupy values per program per distribution.
As Enrico pointed out: You need to adjust or violate the LSB.
Has nothing to do with this thread.
But we're fixing an issue which is none. I'm rather convinced
that all
packages using fedora-usermgmt don't need fixed uids.
As long as you continue with your very own definition of "fixed", it's
hopeless anyway.
Or at least
present a counter-example, where a package needs it.
You can't think of any environment, where predictable uids/gids make
sense?
And then please
explain how it can need a fixed uid/gid and still have survived that
long in the fedora-usermgmt-defaults-to-useradd-r setup.
Because default behaviour is transparent and just like "useradd foo".
According to your murky theory, we should worry a lot, because none of the
packagers and reviewers, who have dealt with fedora-usermgmt, have
questioned the default behaviour.
We're really just vapour-talking. fedora-usermgmt
"fixes" something
that wasn't broken to begin with, and the fix is more broken than
anything we try to suggest fedora-usermgmt would be able to fix.
fedora-usermgmt is not about fixing something, but about adding a
feature. Well, that's my point of view. I'm not a hardcore advocate of
using it everywhere. But I don't understand why a simple EPEL steering
decision is wrapped into a crusade against an optional tool.