From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0AE615800A for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 747C9E08EB; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:42:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw1-x1136.google.com (mail-yw1-x1136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1136]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E6D1E08E2 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:42:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x1136.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-5703d12ab9aso57185867b3.2 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 01:42:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1689669770; x=1692261770; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zMO9DFtaCx5eDqy1+qhfdLoW6qMQS8ip2nf7YhZsizY=; b=Xz7VMx36z3y1crqc27C7jPjCj90r5WBX7w6oiRXEKz0jESoQKy9g/hqINuDSQVBn2k cEW98Hp0b108fkt7YShZUJcgCQhKkxyOnNes/+O39rlsKtWpzPJ2pPw3jUfyLqGEF/tK IoD0Tay+c/89Aru05N+PDgAqm6P+QBmHJkG0YPkcbYAr5y3q/Sl65TH+Ic3UBwCsy6zb gTcMEkB0d1EWkcEU+Otct7Js6SeW6fq+INlVGd/MPmHHe43XeN0/O0ogRgBUb8PY3Lgs wnA8G83HVoNPeNG5WFghVjH1kimQFcGUMzQGuy6+Y3+Qv6BARXgJ2p+3lrhSbLTrE9oG AHjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689669770; x=1692261770; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zMO9DFtaCx5eDqy1+qhfdLoW6qMQS8ip2nf7YhZsizY=; b=WxIqSqKRcjipmbP7xJ1u/N+XjZpzTPaDX45YnTr4WgkTv3VGopErGbVa2cSK/v0eZo COHQULLmm+F26WHvkxepRG4T2VpFAJgFvgnP9YCEK6gY5nzlhndWkLWUGXQCT+k++bkY 6ozz+n1MvzCVIocPDCMkXsqQJv5eLaZBwwgbe65WzDhW5uqOubO9REFWA2HwFK5EPMsw z0f9ELRXZPrf5EhG18Dw00f4euqOG0mCf078ITmyZaqAyguBIy6MUtkNXQ9DcnIwl9bF gO8NWxzUv4Mfl3Fhg6UcPKNvLMdMdtzbMbwH4GRiE7zj958J9Gt2rNj4JpRTdPiOMXdr 8apA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLbYWZEy+ih94N0lLnMB4Ml398cdmn+mwpR93RQZBT81Jtw0Cp4q 9QaH29BofM5d2P3Hd8jV5+xD7dYdJf8cTTyl8KlFIAi6 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlHy+Mieg7OJZEnHzlznixJTtOJRCm0/aJziKhGUYy2g0aaqbrPCA2/SQq0CITMsAHAgjOApYEE2wpOpyZPfx9w= X-Received: by 2002:a81:88c5:0:b0:579:ed5c:2d10 with SMTP id y188-20020a8188c5000000b00579ed5c2d10mr16882912ywf.30.1689669770383; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 01:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9626e2f9-5f57-e061-b3ba-1c1fa95cb868@gentoo.org> <87sf9m9ta5.fsf@gentoo.org> <01b3b14c8a4fdc3df001bdd28eccce60726d68e1.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <01b3b14c8a4fdc3df001bdd28eccce60726d68e1.camel@gentoo.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?0JfRg9GA0LDQsSDQmtCy0LDRh9Cw0LTQt9C1?= Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:42:39 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: obsolete acct-* packages To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007394410600bee65b" X-Archives-Salt: fe5c101c-487a-4a44-b631-8e38b3cc9ea3 X-Archives-Hash: 67b7d37dc2f9f74c537d41507c99992f --0000000000007394410600bee65b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrote: > El jue, 01-01-1970 a las 00:00 +0000, Ulrich Mueller escribi=C3=B3: > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27=E2=80=AFPM Sam James wr= ote: > > > > > 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 > > --0000000000007394410600bee65b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How do we handle this case, then.
= Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID of 1= 23. It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt. After a w= hile appears a new package acct-user/bar, which takes the 123 UID. Then a u= ser, 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 s= ame UID is installed? Should we even care about such cases?

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Tue, 18 = Jul 2023 at 11:22 Pacho Ramos <pacho= @gentoo.org> wrote:
El jue, 01-01-1970 a l= as 00:00 +0000, Ulrich Mueller escribi=C3=B3:
> > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27=E2=80=AFPM 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=C2=A0is still= open. Flow could
> > > ping
> > > the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinio= n
> > > there
> > > seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I thi= nk it's
> > > wrong
> > > to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essential= ly
> > > 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

--0000000000007394410600bee65b--