1 |
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 16:31 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> All, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting |
5 |
> for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Here are my thoughts about it. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> - As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to care about UIDS/GIDS |
10 |
> most of the time. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> - I realize that our settings are suggestions, but the values we can |
13 |
> suggest are not infinite. We have run out once, and it is only a matter of |
14 |
> time until we do again. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> - If an end user needs to care about the UID/GID, they can easily override |
17 |
> the settings in make.conf. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> In short, I don't think we should be forcing maintainers to pick a |
20 |
> specific UID/GID for every package that needs a user/group. Most of the |
21 |
> time they can set ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID to -1. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Thoughts? In particular, I want to hear from folks who disagree with me |
24 |
> about using -1 in the main tree for most packages. |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
Let me put this bluntly. Yes, most users don't care. However: |
28 |
|
29 |
1) if we don't assign static UIDs/GIDs, the few users who care are gonna |
30 |
be in hell having to assign them all manually. Every single one of |
31 |
them, on every one of their systems. |
32 |
|
33 |
2) if we do assign static UIDs/GIDs... what's the problem, again? |
34 |
Little extra work for a few devs? |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Best regards, |
38 |
Michał Górny |