On 11/30/21 17:32, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, James Cloos wrote:
>>> "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes:
>> UM> Also, why would one allocate UIDs in the 500..999 range (1000 is fine,
>> UM> actually)? Gentoo
On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 22:45 -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> So questions from my side are:
> Does your cluster not have human users?
> Do the userids for the human users also not have to match between
> hosts in the cluster?
>
>
You can easily create ebuilds for the human users who access the
Hi,
On 2021/12/01 08:45, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:16 PM Jaco Kroon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021/12/01 03:32, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> This is the part of this that I don't understand. If we aren't enforcing
>>> an ID, why do we care which ID to try first? It seems to be an
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:16 PM Jaco Kroon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021/12/01 03:32, William Hubbs wrote:
> > This is the part of this that I don't understand. If we aren't enforcing
> > an ID, why do we care which ID to try first? It seems to be an
> > unnecessary step since users can pick the
Hi,
On 2021/12/01 03:32, William Hubbs wrote:
> This is the part of this that I don't understand. If we aren't enforcing
> an ID, why do we care which ID to try first? It seems to be an
> unnecessary step since users can pick the IDs they want by putting
> settings in make.conf.
Because when
On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 19:32 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> This is the part of this that I don't understand. If we aren't enforcing
> an ID, why do we care which ID to try first? It seems to be an
> unnecessary step since users can pick the IDs they want by putting
> settings in make.conf.
>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, James Cloos wrote:
>
> > "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes:
> UM> Also, why would one allocate UIDs in the 500..999 range (1000 is fine,
> UM> actually)? Gentoo always had UID_MIN=1000 and
> "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes:
UM> I was specifically asking about Gentoo infra there.
ah; i completely missed that bit.
sorry for the misunderstanding.
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, James Cloos wrote:
> "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes:
UM> Also, why would one allocate UIDs in the 500..999 range (1000 is fine,
UM> actually)? Gentoo always had UID_MIN=1000 and SYS_UID_MAX=999.
> why do you thing gentoo is everyone's first or only dist on their
>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:25 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> > - If Gentoo adds an acct-user/foo user, and that user already exists
> > on my system with the wrong UID: the eclass dies[0].
>
> I don't think that's correct. The eclass will just use
> "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes:
UM> Also, why would one allocate UIDs in the 500..999 range (1000 is fine,
UM> actually)? Gentoo always had UID_MIN=1000 and SYS_UID_MAX=999.
why do you thing gentoo is everyone's first or only dist on their
network?
or even on any given box?
forcing
On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 05:05 +, Sam James wrote:
>
> What I wish we had done (and there's still time to do, albeit belated --
> it's still useful for the remaining big bits like Apache and nginx) is
> write a news item explaining the implications and linked to a page
> like
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, Alec Warner wrote:
> - If Gentoo adds an acct-user/foo user, and that user already exists
> on my system with the wrong UID: the eclass dies[0].
I don't think that's correct. The eclass will just use the already
existing UID then (except for the very few acct-user
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 8:07 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 16:31 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID
> > setting
> > for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
> >
> > Here are my
> On 29 Nov 2021, at 00:06, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 23:39 +, Sam James wrote:
>>
>> Whissi and others raised some points that I think you may have some views on
>> (and I'm interested in hearing them).
>>
>
> I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 16:31 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting
> for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
>
> Here are my thoughts about it.
>
> - As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 23:39 +, Sam James wrote:
>
> Whissi and others raised some points that I think you may have some views on
> (and I'm interested in hearing them).
>
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Whissi takes issue
with using the package manager to manage users,
> On 28 Nov 2021, at 23:26, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> [sinp]
> The only problem that anyone has put forth is one that does not exist.
> UIDs and GIDs are still assigned dynamically in Gentoo. The number you
> type in the ebuild is only a hint: it's the first number that will be
> tried during
On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 16:31 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting
> for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
>
> Here are my thoughts about it.
>
> - As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to
All,
I want to discuss why we ban -1 as the ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID setting
for all acct-user and acct-group packages in ::gentoo.
Here are my thoughts about it.
- As Gordon pointed out, it isn't necessary for us to care about UIDS/GIDS
most of the time.
- I realize that our settings
20 matches
Mail list logo
