1 |
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 09:15:36PM +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
3 |
> > On 2021-11-11 11:59, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
4 |
> > > We could: |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example, |
7 |
> > > 500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation. |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > - Open part of the range 60001..65533. Not sure if all software will be |
10 |
> > > happy with that. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > - Admit that the concept of static allocation has failed, and return to |
13 |
> > > dynamic allocation. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > Only the third option is really possible. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> FWIW, I agree with this sentiment. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not |
20 |
> nowadays |
21 |
> 2/ We cant keep adding new IDs to a distribution as new software gets |
22 |
> added - one side is unbounded. This is losing game. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Switching back to dynamic allocation seems to be the best option. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> -- |
27 |
> Eray |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
I realize I'm very late to this party, but +1 from me also. |
31 |
|
32 |
We should use dynamic uid/git assignment by default and maybe provide a |
33 |
way to force certain uids/gids to be constant if users want this. |
34 |
|
35 |
William |