Hello, On Wed, 08.02.2006 at 16:51:12 +1100, Ian McWilliam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8 Feb 2006, at 12:00 PM, Arnaud Bergeron wrote: > >On 2/7/06, Nikolay Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>* Keith Richardson [2006-02-07]: > >>>for the same UID. Are there any reasons *not* to provide the > >>>next-availble UID if the '!' prefix wasn't specified? > >> > >>In a network, having different UIDs for the same accounts is just > >>calling for trouble. You really want a deterministic solution there. > > > >Also some apps have their uids compiled-in. What would happen if > >another port "stole" the uid because the one just before was taken (or > >whatever the reason). > > This is poor software design. They should be looking up the uid or > gid and not relying on a hard coded number.
that may well be, but must be catered for in the real world (imho). I came across that same problem with the courier mail suite, and decided to make a package as a build-depends for just this purpose, which does nothing except creating that user id and her home. This is sort of ugly, but the cleanest way I can think of atm. I'm very interested in other ideas on this matter! Best, --Toni++
