| 1 |
On 2019-12-09 18:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> One problem with that is that at some time user.eclass dynamically |
| 3 |
> allocated IDs starting at 101 upwards, and later this was changed to 999 |
| 4 |
> downwards (at different times for UIDs and GIDs). So for existing |
| 5 |
> systems you can expect some range above 101 and some range below 999 to |
| 6 |
> be occupied. So it may not be the best idea to start picking IDs from |
| 7 |
> 101 upwards, which are most likely to collide. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Sure, but what's the problem here? Or let me rephrase: Which problem do |
| 10 |
you try to avoid/address with blocking 501-999 for now? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Like said, if an ID is already taken for any reason on user's system, |
| 13 |
that's not a problem. acct-* can handle that... there's nothing like a |
| 14 |
collision. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And until user.eclass is completely gone, all packages are migrated to |
| 17 |
GLEP 81 and all users have completely reinstalled their Gentoo systems |
| 18 |
(most packages used dynamic allocation until GLEP 81), you won't have |
| 19 |
"clean", collision free systems with same ID all over the places. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 25 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives