remove fedora-usermgmt?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:19:47 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:31:13PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Predictable means you can keep the uid/gid constant,
> 
> in a floating window.

Eh? What do you mean with "floating"? That you refuse to keep the base
value constant? Well, there are lots of other ways how to damage
installations.
 
> "Constant" is the definition of a fixed uid. If there is need for a
> fixed uid, ask for one (yes, there _seems_ to be currently no space, but
> that is another issue), if not use useradd -r.

And with useradd -r, how do you get the same uid/gid for a package on all
installations, when you want that?

> > but still have an influence on where that is within your range of
> > values. Everytime you install a package again on a machine under
> > control of a configured fedora-usermgmt, the package allocates the
> > same uid/gid.
> 
> sure - oops, the admin forgot to configure fedora-usermgmt on machine
> number 23. Now all uid/gid are messed up.

In the same way you can install the wrong distribution on machine number
23 e.g. because you insert the wrong media. ;) fedora-usermgmt setup can
be made available at installation time.

> From any POV I look at it, this design is flawed ...

Hyperbole.
 
> > The only alternative is useradd -u/groupadd -g with a larger range of
> > uids/gids from which to occupy values per program per distribution.
> 
> As Enrico pointed out: You need to adjust or violate the LSB.

Has nothing to do with this thread.
 
> But we're fixing an issue which is none. I'm rather convinced that all
> packages using fedora-usermgmt don't need fixed uids.

As long as you continue with your very own definition of "fixed", it's
hopeless anyway.

> Or at least
> present a counter-example, where a package needs it.

You can't think of any environment, where predictable uids/gids make
sense?

> And then please
> explain how it can need a fixed uid/gid and still have survived that
> long in the fedora-usermgmt-defaults-to-useradd-r setup.

Because default behaviour is transparent and just like "useradd foo".

According to your murky theory, we should worry a lot, because none of the
packagers and reviewers, who have dealt with fedora-usermgmt, have
questioned the default behaviour.

> We're really just vapour-talking. fedora-usermgmt "fixes" something
> that wasn't broken to begin with, and the fix is more broken than
> anything we try to suggest fedora-usermgmt would be able to fix.

fedora-usermgmt is not about fixing something, but about adding a
feature. Well, that's my point of view. I'm not a hardcore advocate of
using it everywhere. But I don't understand why a simple EPEL steering
decision is wrapped into a crusade against an optional tool.