1 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 01:41:24 PM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:22:07 PM EST Michael Mol wrote: |
3 |
> > If Gentoo wants to do it internally, that's one thing. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> This list is about Gentoo internal things |
6 |
|
7 |
Here, let me bring up a bit of recent history from your Message-ID |
8 |
<assp.0140865882.25530652.rRlbQJgv4Y@wlt>, which had a signature of |
9 |
iEYEABECAAYFAlg8iAQACgkQTXGypIOqM1A2EgCglmZkNYaJ16qQkSxezTqCtI4/ |
10 |
PwoAnR2dW0XUFZk8QUmgrVwu+3OpRxS+ |
11 |
=tuat, which my client indicated matched the key |
12 |
0xC47A576A663995BADF1B54724D71B2A483AA3350, but I don't have your key trusted, |
13 |
so whatever: |
14 |
|
15 |
> I believe the main reason such is the case is a lack of any such list or |
16 |
> database for others to adhere to. Once again an area Gentoo could be |
17 |
> leading. |
18 |
> Had Gentoo done this years ago others might have adopted. |
19 |
|
20 |
> IMHO it is something that should be a part of LSB. If not POSIX in general. |
21 |
> One cannot really change the past or current state of things. But can make |
22 |
the future better. |
23 |
|
24 |
> For now who cares about other OS or distros. If Gentoo gets its house in |
25 |
> order |
26 |
> others may follow. |
27 |
|
28 |
I will note that it's this point when I first replied; that was the point when |
29 |
you chose to expand the scope outside Gentoo. |
30 |
|
31 |
> |
32 |
> > But I would recommend |
33 |
> > against inviting other distributions to use Gentoo's list, which was |
34 |
> > something you seemed to be suggesting. Doing so asks that Gentoo shoulder |
35 |
> > the bureaucratic load from other distributions that want things added to |
36 |
> > Gentoo's list. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Gentoo cannot force others to do anything. |
39 |
|
40 |
I didn't say force. I said invite. |
41 |
|
42 |
> If Gentoo is leading in a |
43 |
> direction, others choose to follow or not. Gentoo does not set standards |
44 |
> that would be up to LSB and/or POSIX. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> My point is Gentoo should do its own thing, lead the way. Ideally others |
47 |
> follow and it becomes a standard either in LSB or POSIX. Hopefully that will |
48 |
> clarify my position. |
49 |
|
50 |
As you noted, Arch appeared to attempt this, and others did not follow. |
51 |
|
52 |
> |
53 |
> > If you want to tie this specifically to Gentoo packaging, that's fine. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> Which is why it is being discussed on a Gentoo development list and not |
56 |
> others. |
57 |
|
58 |
That's fine. As I pointed out, I only started chiming in when you began |
59 |
advocating exporting Gentoo's list to a broader ecosystem. |
60 |
|
61 |
[snip] |
62 |
|
63 |
> > > This is not needless bureaucracy , this is necessary. |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > Opinion. Why is it necessary? What is it necessary for? |
66 |
> |
67 |
> It is necessary so Gentoo base system installs are consistent from one |
68 |
> system to the next, Just as RHEL and Debian, and likely others. When |
69 |
> working with large amounts of installs, You want them all to be the same or |
70 |
> as close to identical as possible. Thus the rise of Docker, CoreOS, etc. |
71 |
|
72 |
If RHEL and Debian are consistent from one system to the next, obviously it's |
73 |
sensical to use their list. But why don't they use each others? Or am I |
74 |
missing something, and that's exactly what they're doing? |
75 |
|
76 |
> |
77 |
> > Oh, I understand the problem, but you haven't explained why your solution |
78 |
> > is the necessary solution to it, or how you would cope with the plethora |
79 |
> > of edge cases I brought up. It would seem there are already many |
80 |
> > established workarounds for the status quo, unstable-UID/GID in a |
81 |
> > cross-system context. |
82 |
> My solution is to avoid such issues. I start with a common base image. I try |
83 |
> to ensure anything else installed beyond that, which adds new users/groups |
84 |
> is the same. At times I will re-image and use that as well for other |
85 |
> similar systems. Rather than mess with doing the same install to many and |
86 |
> trying to sync UID/GID. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> Think cloning rather than installing. |
89 |
|
90 |
Sure. But if you clone a seed node, does it matter that a second from-scratch |
91 |
install may not have the same mapping? |
92 |
|
93 |
[snip] |
94 |
|
95 |
> > Less bad if you intend to keep it unique to |
96 |
> > Gentoo, but the broader you make the scope, the more strain you'll put on |
97 |
> > the ecosystem as a whole. |
98 |
> |
99 |
> Standards need to exist so there is consistency. In the absence of said |
100 |
> standard, next best thing you can do is look to what others are doing and do |
101 |
> the same. Thus I tend to say go with RedHat UID/GID over say Arch, maybe |
102 |
> even Debian. But those two likely have larger install bases than most any |
103 |
> other distro. If the UID/GID are the same between RedHat and Debian, that |
104 |
> already makes a good deal of systems consistent now. |
105 |
|
106 |
If UID/GID are consistent between RH and Debian, then yeah, what you have is a |
107 |
de facto standard, and it would be reasonable to conform, if there are people |
108 |
who actually have a need for that cross-system mirroring. |
109 |
|
110 |
> |
111 |
> > More daemons will be build that are intended to |
112 |
> > run as local users. More software will be pushed into opaque blobs a la |
113 |
> > Snap and Flatpack. |
114 |
> |
115 |
> I am talking about core system accounts |
116 |
|
117 |
Who decides what qualifies as a core system account? |
118 |
|
119 |
If there's any trend I've been able to clearly observe over the last fifteen |
120 |
years, it's the grinding of such boundaries into finer and finer granularity. |
121 |
Heck, I think there was a thread on gentoo-user some time in the last few |
122 |
months where someone wanted to be able to use two different MTAs on the same |
123 |
host! (Obviously, he couldn't, but he had a use case.) |
124 |
|
125 |
Heck, some time five or six years ago, I filed a bug report asking that some |
126 |
core package (maybe it was gcc?) have its build dependencies properly defined. |
127 |
I was told that wasn't going to happen, as doing that for all the core |
128 |
packages would be too difficult or some such; their dependencies would be left |
129 |
coarse. And now we've had threads in the last few months touching on resolving |
130 |
that very thing. |
131 |
|
132 |
> |
133 |
> > As a general rule, the bigger the hassle you make something, the less |
134 |
> > people will want to engage. |
135 |
> |
136 |
> When standards exist, others will follow, ideally. When standards do not |
137 |
> exist, everyone is left to their own way of doing things. IMHO it is less of |
138 |
> a hassle to comply with standards than all the various ways of doing |
139 |
> something. |
140 |
|
141 |
For the packager, for sure. For developers trying to make new things, not so |
142 |
much. |
143 |
|
144 |
-- |
145 |
:wq |