Bug#248500: [Adduser-devel] Bug#248500: adduser: do not re-use uids used once

2011-11-23 Thread Marc Haber
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:32:53PM +0200, Pepe wrote: > Well, we already have this "state file" in the system, namely > "/etc/passwd". *UGH* I'd prefer a /var/lib/adduser/state over abusing /etc/passwd any time. Greetings Marc --

Bug#248500: [Adduser-devel] Bug#248500: adduser: do not re-use uids used once

2009-07-18 Thread Pepe
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:29:58PM +0100, Joerg Hoh wrote: > Hi > > We need to have a persistent statefile if we want to avoid to reuse a uid > which was already used by some other user. Think of the following scenario: > > adduser foo > -> foo gets uid X > > deluser foo > -> uid X is no longer

Bug#248500: [Adduser-devel] Bug#248500: adduser: do not re-use uids used once

2006-02-28 Thread Joerg Hoh
Hi We need to have a persistent statefile if we want to avoid to reuse a uid which was already used by some other user. Think of the following scenario: adduser foo -> foo gets uid X deluser foo -> uid X is no longer used adduser bar -> bar gets uid X So this uid is reused, even with the "alwa

Bug#248500: [Adduser-devel] Bug#248500: adduser: do not re-use uids used once

2006-02-25 Thread Marc Haber
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 11:11:38PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Hast Du den applied? Ich find "reuse" nicht in der Konfigdatei und > auch nicht in adduser. Errm. That one was not meant to go to the BTS. I apologize. Greetings Marc -- ---

Bug#248500: [Adduser-devel] Bug#248500: adduser: do not re-use uids used once

2006-02-25 Thread Marc Haber
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:08:26PM +0100, Joerg Hoh wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:37:28PM -0600, Aaron Hall wrote: > > Hello, on a local system I wanted to fix the problem talked about in > > this bug, and for us, the "naive" approach of selecting a UID one higher > > than the highest current

Bug#248500: [Adduser-devel] Bug#248500: adduser: do not re-use uids used once

2006-01-13 Thread Joerg Hoh
Hi Aaron On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:37:28PM -0600, Aaron Hall wrote: > Hello, on a local system I wanted to fix the problem talked about in > this bug, and for us, the "naive" approach of selecting a UID one higher > than the highest currently in the range was good enough. I locally > modified add