Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: obsolete acct-* packages

["Зураб Квачадзе" <zurabid2016@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1720 bytes --]

How do we handle this case, then.
Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID of
123. It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt. After a
while appears a new package acct-user/bar, which takes the 123 UID. Then a
user, say Bob, updates their system, which haven't been updated for some
time. What if they still have acct-user/foo, when acct-user/bar with the
same UID is installed? Should we even care about such cases?

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 11:22 Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

> El jue, 01-01-1970 a las 00:00 +0000, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide
> > > > > on a
> > > > > policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?
> > > >
> > > > Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could
> > > > ping
> > > > the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion
> > > > there
> > > > seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's
> > > > wrong
> > > > to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially
> > > > forces
> > > > the "don't keep them" path.
> >
> > > The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a
> > > policy
> > > were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.
> >
> > > Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems
> > > acceptable
> > > to me.
> >
> > I'd say we remove the packages, because system user and group ids are
> > a somewhat scarce resource.
>
> I agree because of the same reasons
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2503 bytes --]