Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 13:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > > > 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not
> > > > nowadays
> > > > 2/ We cant keep adding new IDs to a distribution as new software gets
> > > > added - one side is unbounded.  This is losing game.
> >
> > Not sure. In practice, the number of packages is limited. (And if the
> > argument was valid, it would apply to dynamic alloction too.)
> >
> > > > Switching back to dynamic allocation seems to be the best option.
> >
> > > I realize I'm very late to this party, but +1 from me also.
> >
> > > We should use dynamic uid/git assignment by default and maybe provide
> > > a way to force certain uids/gids to be constant if users want this.
> >
> > While the rationale for static allocation that made it into GLEP 81 [1]
> > is rather weak, several people had argued in favour of it on the mailing
> > list [2].
> >
> > In any case, let's cross that bridge when we reach it. For now, we're
> > good with 250 additional IDs.
>
> It is inevitable that we will reach this bridge again -- whether or not
> it is in a month or a year, it will happen.
>
> Why are we just kicking the can down the road instead of admitting that
> static allocation wasn't a good idea and going back to dynamic
> allocation? Let's find out what the people who argued for static
> allocation think.
>

Why are you assuming that something "wasn't a good idea" just because
you think so?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny