Hi Leo, On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 00:16:45 +0100 Leo Prikler <leo.prik...@student.tugraz.at> wrote:
> > And it indeed is possible to add (uid 4711) in the literal and it > > will work > > just fine. > I'm aware you're joking, or at least I hope you are, What? It's perfectly reasonable for a distribution to have stable system user ids. That's what Debian supports, too: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#uid-and-gid-classes >0-99: >Globally allocated by the Debian project, the same on every Debian system. >These ids will appear in the passwd and group files of all Debian systems, new >ids in this range being added automatically as the base-passwd package is >updated. >Packages which need a single statically allocated uid or gid should use one of >these; their maintainers should ask the base-passwd maintainer for ids. [...] >60000-64999: >Globally allocated by the Debian project, but only created on demand. The ids >are allocated centrally and statically, but the actual accounts are only >>created on users’ systems on demand. >[...] And so does FreeBSD, see https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/users-and-groups.html and https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/blob/master/UIDs for the actual registry. For that matter, IANA does this for ports and many other things. And so on. Stable defaults are *good*. Right now, the Guix service user user-account record specifies 99% of the /etc/passwd entry. I indeed propose to make it 100% for system users for Guix system services. >but I shouldn't have to point out why hardcoding ids into those literals is a >bad idea. You have to point that out to us--especially since Guix service user accounts of the account-service-type extension can only be instantiated once anyway.
pgpdR45JsQpyA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature