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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78A00158086 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BF8C2BC04E; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:31:16 +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 54ADF2BC00E for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (nullmailer pid 28766 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:31:12 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:31:12 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo development Subject: [gentoo-dev] rfc: allow -1 for ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID in ::gentoo Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: gentoo development 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="WEQ9miHxSvDH3o24" Content-Disposition: inline X-Archives-Salt: 7418a4df-ad2a-44c7-baa2-d1b1fea015d4 X-Archives-Hash: b9f4bb44fc09efa9de40e9a628c7e191 --WEQ9miHxSvDH3o24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline All, I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo. Here are my thoughts about it. - As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to care about UIDS/GIDS most of the time. - I realize that our settings are suggestions, but the values we can suggest are not infinite. We have run out once, and it is only a matter of time until we do again. - If an end user needs to care about the UID/GID, they can easily override the settings in make.conf. In short, I don't think we should be forcing maintainers to pick a specific UID/GID for every package that needs a user/group. Most of the time they can set ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID to -1. Thoughts? In particular, I want to hear from folks who disagree with me about using -1 in the main tree for most packages. Thanks, William --WEQ9miHxSvDH3o24 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCYaQDKgAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OMgKAJ0RKnEc2qnLkcBuzQhp1Oa1SVsV9ACeMlVLC7wt/w/rI+lpFff9wFB2pUk= =LFNq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WEQ9miHxSvDH3o24--