| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 2:27 PM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:57:39PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 4 |
> > We don't even do static allocation. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> There are a few exceptional cases where a user or group needs a |
| 7 |
> > specific identifier; but those were always statically allocated and |
| 8 |
> > nothing has changed in that regard. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Doesn't the emerge fail if a different user with ACCT_USER_ID already |
| 11 |
> exists on |
| 12 |
> the system (unless ACCT_USER_ID is set to -1, which is forbidden by qa |
| 13 |
> policy)? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If that's the case I don't see how we aren't doing static allocation. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
User PoV when I see a bunch of acct-* packages pop up in emerge @world |
| 19 |
updates: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
A bunch of of acct-* ebuilds make claims for specific uid/gid for |
| 22 |
applications |
| 23 |
that don't have a reason I can think of to be requiring a specific number, |
| 24 |
and |
| 25 |
would never be used in a way (e.g. NFS-shared /etc) where the numeric |
| 26 |
value actually matters. |
Archives