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 |