On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:36:29PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:49:16 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > For the different behaviour you would first need to enable fedora-usermgmt > > > via the alternatives system. > > > > Which rather proves that it is useless. You either have the default > > unpredictable behaviour, or you need to configure global resources *per > > host* or *per site*. > > Which is possible due to fedora-usermgmt packaging features. I haven't > said that it is pretty or as easy as a one-line kickstart option. It's not about a beauty contest, it's about whether this is something we want to see being tuned like that at all. I wonder how many of the packagers making use of fedora-usermgmt are really aware that they are not really creating predictable uids/gids? And how many of them do rely on this feature and are falsely deceived? If your package works with plain useradd -r, that's OK, the use that. If not, then fedora-usermgmt does *not* save your day. Even worse: It may look localy as if it does and when deployed to users your package will boom. > > The default behaviour which accounts for 99.99% of all users is that > > people don't even know there is something to configure. > > The same percentage of users doesn't configure UID_*/GID_* either. Indeed, that's why we don't ship a tool that changes these values, and so why should we do so for useradd/fedora-usermgmt? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp53eMYY17yN.pgp
Description: PGP signature