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 D3F45158086 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CDB12BC044; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:06:35 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8F92BC001 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: allow -1 for ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID in ::gentoo From: Michael Orlitzky To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:06:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <8B541414-A752-4668-AA72-EC3AEEC870C3@gentoo.org> References: <4accff715fedc3c142bdb67e4b52cfc0cfd6bb4a.camel@gentoo.org> <8B541414-A752-4668-AA72-EC3AEEC870C3@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1221114a-d519-4e0e-8ed3-f3a846fbc3ed X-Archives-Hash: 927ca4448534a4b4162ca0e77da36845 On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 23:39 +0000, Sam James wrote: > > Whissi and others raised some points that I think you may have some views on > (and I'm interested in hearing them). > I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Whissi takes issue with using the package manager to manage users, period. Not specifically with our use of a UID/GID hint. I didn't respond to the first thread because I didn't want to pick a fight when the correct conclusion (IMO) was already reached. In the first thread I see only hypothetical problems raised (and a bunch of people who didn't realize the numbers are only a hint). If any of those problems are real and solved by allowing ACCT_USER_ID=-1 in ::gentoo, you'll have to point them out.