Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:06:57
Message-Id: YaPTRqV6g8u49TXa@linux1.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
2 > >>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
3 >
4 > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
5 > >> 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not
6 > >> nowadays
7 > >> 2/ We cant keep adding new IDs to a distribution as new software gets
8 > >> added - one side is unbounded. This is losing game.
9 >
10 > Not sure. In practice, the number of packages is limited. (And if the
11 > argument was valid, it would apply to dynamic alloction too.)
12 >
13 > >> Switching back to dynamic allocation seems to be the best option.
14 >
15 > > I realize I'm very late to this party, but +1 from me also.
16 >
17 > > We should use dynamic uid/git assignment by default and maybe provide
18 > > a way to force certain uids/gids to be constant if users want this.
19 >
20 > While the rationale for static allocation that made it into GLEP 81 [1]
21 > is rather weak, several people had argued in favour of it on the mailing
22 > list [2].
23 >
24 > In any case, let's cross that bridge when we reach it. For now, we're
25 > good with 250 additional IDs.
26
27 It is inevitable that we will reach this bridge again -- whether or not
28 it is in a month or a year, it will happen.
29
30 Why are we just kicking the can down the road instead of admitting that
31 static allocation wasn't a good idea and going back to dynamic
32 allocation? Let's find out what the people who argued for static
33 allocation think.
34
35 William

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>