On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:47:27PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 05.03.2007 13:18, Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:07:42PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >>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. > > Maybe. I never looked to much into this shit, but seems to me all > solutions so far are painful or hard to achieve, so we have to find the > worst evil, whatever that might look like... The worst? ;) > >>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! :) > > -1 (enough on my plate already) Could you perhaps try to find a volunteer in the fesco group? > >>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. > > Shouldn't? Yes, looks like we both like to argue against ourselves ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp1CAXp6suEX.pgp
Description: PGP signature