On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> >> 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not
> >> nowadays
> >> 2/ We cant keep adding new IDs to a distribution as new software gets
> >> added - one side is unbounded.  This is losing game.
> 
> Not sure. In practice, the number of packages is limited. (And if the
> argument was valid, it would apply to dynamic alloction too.)
> 
> >> Switching back to dynamic allocation seems to be the best option.
> 
> > I realize I'm very late to this party, but +1 from me also.
> 
> > We should use dynamic uid/git assignment by default and maybe provide
> > a way to force certain uids/gids to be constant if users want this.
> 
> While the rationale for static allocation that made it into GLEP 81 [1]
> is rather weak, several people had argued in favour of it on the mailing
> list [2].
> 
> In any case, let's cross that bridge when we reach it. For now, we're
> good with 250 additional IDs.

It is inevitable that we will reach this bridge again -- whether or not
it is in a month or a year, it will happen.

Why are we just kicking the can down the road instead of admitting that
static allocation wasn't a good idea and going back to dynamic
allocation? Let's find out what the people who argued for static
allocation think.

William