Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 9/17/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing I'm concerned about with Dan's proposal of aligning all the
users and groups up between the various *LFS books is of our motto "Your
distro, your rules". If we start mandating all the users and groups
that folks should have as part of a base system simply to create
consistency between the various LFS projects, which a reader may or may
not go on to refer to, there's an inherent lack of flexibility there.
Well, I suppose they're free to ignore our list, but I'm still
uncomfortable with specifying any more users/groups than we have
currently if they're not directly used by LFS packages.
Completely understandle, and that's not the effect I want. I've always
liked the "suggested" list Bruce put at the beginning of BLFS because
I know as a user that here are some uid/gid's that I might encounter.
Now, I think only a fool is just going to add a boatload of
unnecessary users and groups to the system, but at least you know what
to expect.
Also, LFS would never have to mention this list. It would be for the
editors. It's main purpose would be that if LFS decides it has to add
the nobody user, it doesn't assign it a uid that's going to stomp on
another book. This is most important in BLFS where the groups really
get added, but I thought I'd bring it up here. And I think it's kind
of cool that the CLFS books tell you about some common system groups
you might want to add. But we need to get those ids aligned with
what's in BLFS, most importantly.
There is also a bug open referring to this exact issue. What I'm
proposing would make closing that bug a _lot_ easier. If there was a
list for the editors that fleshed out all the users/groups that could
happen in any of the LFS books, then that bug would just reduce to "we
need the root and nobody user and these common groups". Bug closed.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1032
--
Dan
No offense here guys, we had a mandate from Gerard on this, the person
who was going to take care of this situation dropped the ball. The
bottom line is, it was proposed to have a master list, but now with the
several months that have gone by with noone taken action, I have to
agree with Tushar's original idea. This is a build it yourself project,
who are we to dictate what people should use or not to use in UID/GID's,
and frankly, I think the directions should be made in all of the books
more generic and not depend on #'s.
For example a group for an ftp user can be added with
groupadd ftp
A user for ftp can be added with
useradd -g ftp ftp
So why do we need to dicate the ID #'s.
As far as the LFS/CLFS builds go, the only users/groups we should create
a the base ones that have been laid out in FSB/FHS, but list the options
ones with commands like those above.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
