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 40B92158086 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B465D2BC03F; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 E6B4B2BC001 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (nullmailer pid 27950 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:26:54 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 14:26:54 -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="WYyJaeANAoz7wmHd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 3b125662-88ff-45f3-8a9c-ba1a1ebd7965 X-Archives-Hash: 01afe5ecc19ddac8d1b99bdb65847bbd --WYyJaeANAoz7wmHd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:57:39PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 2021-11-28 11:06:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >=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 >=20 > We don't even do static allocation. The UIDs and GIDs in the ebuilds > are suggestions, meant to benefit the people who will benefit from > them, and be ignored by everyone else. >=20 > There are a few exceptional cases where a user or group needs a > specific identifier; but those were always statically allocated and > nothing has changed in that regard. Doesn't the emerge fail if a different user with ACCT_USER_ID already exist= s on the system (unless ACCT_USER_ID is set to -1, which is forbidden by qa poli= cy)? If that's the case I don't see how we aren't doing static allocation. William --WYyJaeANAoz7wmHd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCYaPmCQAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OCCiAJ9OIRGv5FMM6N4Uj7Y1cGQiuv3pBgCfU9erH5HIRNxVtsThOTl+sItA8C8= =nWG0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WYyJaeANAoz7wmHd--