non fedora-usermgmt user creation

[Enrico Scholz]

rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) writes:

>>  2. some admins would like to have those UIDs created in a
>>     predictable/defined way
> Here the question is: locally or network-wide?
>
> For local installation, you never need a predictable uid, all you need
> is predictable id within a certain range of uids (You need an id "httpd"
> with uid < 100

Why that? For local installations, the uid does not matter overall. The
only special about the <100 range is, that LSB compliant packages can
assign static uids there.


> For a network wide installation, you'd need to have network-wide
> consistent uid/ids. This doesn't necessarily mean using fixed ids, it
> only means you'll have to have a way to propagate those uid/ids into
> your network. Allocating a range of uids/ids is the most simplistic
> and primitive way, but there are others (Note: you'd also have to
> reserve ids (user names), otherwise they are candidates for clashes,
> too).

Yes, the name-clash is a problem which can not be solved by
fedora-usermgmt. It can be solved partially at the package review level
to choose "good" names.


>>  3. you propose an add-on/wrapper package that allows to do this, but
>>     it is non-transparent: packages that want to use your mechanism
>>     must have a Require for fedora-adduser.  Thus the packager makes
>>     the decision, not the admin
> This is what I consider one fundamental flaw in Enrico's approach. He
> tries to dictate what admins consider their task.

This is wrong. When I dictate somebody, then the packager. For the
admin, fedora-usermgmt is completely transparent and he will not notice
fedora-usermgmt's existence (except from the package list).




Enrico
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060309/9830f88a/attachment.sig>