Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/6] nix and guix GID/UID assignments

[Sergei Trofimovich]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:32:18 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 20:28 +0000, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:24:08 +0100
> > David Seifert <soap@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2019-11-24 at 20:35 +0000, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 17:19:36 +0100
> > > > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2019, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > > > > > I interpreted 'reserved' as 'free to use' on
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/UID_GID_Assignment
> > > > > > Can you tweak it to someting other than 'reserved' so it would be
> > > > > > clear?
> > > > >
> > > > > That's what the "Notes" column was intended for.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll use 60001 .. 60999 / 61001 .. 61999. Is it free though?
> > > > > > '60001..65533' claims to also be 'reserved' as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Debian is also using the range above 60000 for allocations that
> > > > > won't
> > > > > fit into the low range. Theoretically, there is some overlap with
> > > > > systemd dynamic users (61184..65519), but IIUC assigning other UIDs
> > > > > in
> > > > > that range isn't a problem, as long as there are enough free IDs
> > > > > left.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another question, the above are about 2000 users and 2000 groups.
> > > > > Does that imply that we will eventually end up with 4000 packages
> > > > > in acct-{user,group}?
> > > >
> > > > Should be 2000 users, 2 groups. Worst case it's 2002 packages, yes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For a package manager that likely only 3 Gentoo users in the world use?
> >
> > I'll avoid debating you scientific method of deriving that number.
> > What is your threshold? 10 users? 1000 users? 100000 users?
>
> Could you provide some numbers on performance impact of having that many
> users?  In particular on systems using plain text passwd database.
>
> >
> > > I don't consider that particularly helpful, and am very much inclined
> > > to oppose that.
> >
> > I'm fine with current use of user.eclass if QA grants nix and guix an
> > exception to use user.eclass indefinitely instead of GLEP-81 layout.
>
> I would rather be inclined to give nix and guix a special privilege of
> being moved to an overlay.  It seems so far that they are unjustly
> trying to assume growing number of privileges they have no claim for,
> and trying to run their own non-Gentoo shop inside Gentoo for no good
> reason.

As always great choice of words. So be it.

-- 

  Sergei