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 4B9FA158086 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AC060E0857; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:06:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F99E0845 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:06:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (nullmailer pid 27397 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:06:46 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:06:46 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <0890a89e-2d43-8889-6bbb-decad15b0a2e@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8pEv/ofx862rnl5B" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: f5f8c0d0-edda-45b4-8275-e294f2e7669e X-Archives-Hash: bfaea3d9c9bb11d285a8ea57d9dd0bfa --8pEv/ofx862rnl5B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote: >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Not sure. In practice, the number of packages is limited. (And if the > argument was valid, it would apply to dynamic alloction too.) >=20 > >> Switching back to dynamic allocation seems to be the best option. >=20 > > I realize I'm very late to this party, but +1 from me also. >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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]. >=20 > 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 --8pEv/ofx862rnl5B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCYaPTQQAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OEoIAJ47K/wZ/nFbQf/U8Kzv4wEJtOBqigCfQxTejUA6ww4LKSm3Hpkki4QiGGw= =EIOG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8pEv/ofx862rnl5B--