| 1 |
On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 13:29 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 8/7/19 1:10 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Using '999' was also suggested (as the first dynamic |
| 4 |
> > UID/GID) but it would cause issues for people enabling |
| 5 |
> > ACCT_*_ENFORCE_ID. To avoid this, '-1' does not trigger collision |
| 6 |
> > checks. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Feel free to proceed with this, I'm just curious: what's the problem |
| 10 |
> with 999 and enforced IDs? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
They will fail once the first package allocates 999 ;-). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > +# |
| 17 |
> > +# Overlays should set this to -1 to dynamically allocate GID. Using -1 |
| 18 |
> > +# in ::gentoo is prohibited by policy. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Should say "UID" in the user eclass. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Fixed, thanks. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives