On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:07:42PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 05.03.2007 12:32, Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:47:41PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >>On 3/4/07, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath redhat com> wrote: > >>>Dennis Gilmore wrote: > >>>>Once upon a time Sunday 04 March 2007, Mike McGrath wrote: > >>>>>Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >>>>>>I see fedora-usermgmt has been made available for EPEL. That is > >>>>>>probably going to cause some confusion. Maybe rename it into > >>>>>>system-usermgmt or something more distribution neutral. The other > >>>>>>packages except for fedora-ds-base are all indeed specific to Fedora. > >>>>>Why don't we just remove it? > >>>>Mike, i know you hate it :) but alot of packages use it. > >>>More packages don't use it and no packages in RHEL use it. I'll stop > >>>now, I don't want to be "that guy" :-D > >>Can I be that guy. Personally I think F-U-M has caused me more > >>problems moving apps over into an enterprise environment. Trying to > >>get packages installed before LDAP is up etc and having to deal with > >>oh look clamav is now the same as Johnny the Hacker. > > > >FWIW I hate it, too, anyone here around with other feelings for that? > >Maybe we're all "that guy" ;) > > > >Anyway please kill and *ban* it, we should endorse using that mechanism. > > > >If an application really needs a fixed uid/gid let's provide it one > >and let's fix the uid/gid 100-499 space being eaten from low to high > >(high to low would be 1000x better) which is dangling for years. If > >non-fixed system account had been assigned 499 lowwards then we'd have > >now space to extend to say uid/gid 200 ... > > Just my 2 cent: Yes, we need to find a solution, whatever that might > look like. Writing and enforcing a fedora-usermgmt successor could be > one, not really, it moves the problem from a global one to a site-specific one. We need to deal with it on a global scale. > extending the UID/GID space another one. Someone just needs to drive > the whole issue forward and get it approved by the Fedora community, > FPC and FESCo. I'd vote for thl, go thl, go! :) > But the current mix of using fedora-usermgmt in some packages and > not using it in others just sucks. That's why we should allow it to infest the RHEL world, too. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp7ClRLwiWo5.pgp
Description: PGP signature