Re: Keysafe dynamic UID

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

Hi!

On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 15:07:27 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>  ❦ 23 octobre 2016 14:38 +0200, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> :
> >> It is better to use either _keysafe or Debian-keysafe to avoid collision
> >> with existing users (like Kevin Eysafe).
> >
> > Please avoid the atrocious «Debian-user» Debianism. The «_user» is
> > shorter, and used on some of the BSDs already.
> 
> I agree with you. Unfortunately, the current situation is that there is
> no consensus on this.

I might be completely wrong, but the way I read the current situation
is:

  * The (previous) proponents of the Debian- prefixed names don't
    mind much because they are fine delegating that decision to
    someone  else, they just want this decided (?).
  * Many maintainers are cargo-culting the Debian- prefixed names,
    so it spreads, giving the impression that this is favoured, when
    it is probably due to being unaware of there being a better
    alternative.

My proposal at this point would be, whenever you see someone suggest
using Debian-prefixed names, discourage them (or do not propose as a
valid option :), and instead propose using _-prefixed names. If you
can convert packages using Debian-prefixed names you maintain, or by
sending patches.

I've just sent a patch for adduser to accept _-prefixed system names
(but not for normal users w/o --force-badname). Then if this gets
merged, there will be even more compelling reasons to use that. ;)

Thanks,
Guillem