Hi Colin,
Quoting Colin Watson (2022-09-16 23:30:11)
> Coming back to this thread, I think I've reached the conclusion that
> trying to migrate the uid is too risky due to the various weird and
> wonderful things that might need to be changed to match, and it makes
> more sense to just add the
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:51:50AM +0100, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
> Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-10-23 12:13:23)
> > from the discussion it seems that there are two separate issues.
> >
> > 1. giving _apt the static uid 42 for new installations
> >
> > The
Hi Colin,
Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-10-23 12:13:23)
> Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-08-25 09:54:35)
> > Quoting Helmut Grohne (2020-09-06 09:48:26)
> > > Another benefit of this change (if a static uid is allocated) is that we
> > > improve reproducible
Hi,
Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-08-25 09:54:35)
> Quoting Helmut Grohne (2020-09-06 09:48:26)
> > Another benefit of this change (if a static uid is allocated) is that we
> > improve reproducible installations where currently uids may depend on
> > configuration order.
>
> I'm
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:53:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:30:49PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > So, while for some/most usecases something akin to DynamicUser would be
> > enough, for others a more stable user would be preferred and then there
> > are also
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:30:49PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:30:41PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > case) it seems mostly like the sort of user that could be anonymous
> > outside of the lifetime of an apt process, analogous to systemd's
> > DynamicUser.
>
>
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:30:41PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> case) it seems mostly like the sort of user that could be anonymous
> outside of the lifetime of an apt process, analogous to systemd's
> DynamicUser.
The _apt user started as 'nobody', but quickly people complained that
they didn't
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:30:41PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:31:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Colin Watson writes:
> > > I think it's an interesting idea and worth pursuing, but on the face of
> > > it it seems that this would end up violating policy 9.2.2:
> >
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:31:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > I think it's an interesting idea and worth pursuing, but on the face of
> > it it seems that this would end up violating policy 9.2.2:
>
> > "Globally allocated by the Debian project, the same on every
On Aug 29, Colin Watson wrote:
> I can see the issue there. Adding another prompt that every Debian user
> will need to consider on upgrade to the next release is pretty
> undesirable, though - I actively try to avoid that in base-passwd
> changes. So maybe the policy violation, i.e. ending up
Colin Watson writes:
> I think it's an interesting idea and worth pursuing, but on the face of
> it it seems that this would end up violating policy 9.2.2:
> "Globally allocated by the Debian project, the same on every Debian
> system."
> ... because the UID of the _apt user in fact
[For debian-devel readers; the original stated motivation for this bug
was being able to trim down the de-facto-essential set by removing
adduser from it.]
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 09:54:35AM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
> Quoting Helmut Grohne (2020-09-06 09:48:26)
> > Another
Hi,
Quoting Helmut Grohne (2020-09-06 09:48:26)
> Another benefit of this change (if a static uid is allocated) is that we
> improve reproducible installations where currently uids may depend on
> configuration order.
I'm very interested in having this bug fixed because of the reason above.
And
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 09:48:26AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Package: base-passwd
> Version: 3.5.47
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi Colin,
>
> I was again looking into how essential could be trimmed further and I
> stumbled into adduser. Technically, adduser is not transitively
> essential.
Package: base-passwd
Version: 3.5.47
Severity: wishlist
Hi Colin,
I was again looking into how essential could be trimmed further and I
stumbled into adduser. Technically, adduser is not transitively
essential. However, apt (which isn't essential) currently depends on
adduser. I consider apt
15 matches
Mail list logo
