Re: uid/gid - comments?
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> No problem, but you could try to do something realistic and logical.
I did. I read policy, asked base-passwd maintainer for static ids and got
no response at all. Then I asked here, in the hope to get things in order,
what we do right now, by this discussion.
I'm just disappointed by being suggested "use adduser, and if it fails, it
gives you error code", when I've asked for reasonable solution of such
possible failures.
> On the initial install you check if the ups account does already exist.
> You check its uid : if < 1000 then it's a system uid, you can probably use
> it for your package. If > 1000 then you complain loudly and make the
> installation fail. Give an explanation on stdout (and in README.Debian).
I'm looking for a clean solution and according change in policy. If I was
to speak of probabilities, I'd just put there static "91".
> Instead of having an harcoded name you use ups as a default name but
> you make it configurable (command line options or config file). And in
> your script you first try ups and then ups2 (if ups was already taken)
> and so on. When you've found your name, you put it in the
> configuration file and that's it ! You've solved your problem.
I did see this solution. I just couldn't believe this is what we want all
the packages with system uid/gid to do.
Will we really force _this_ behavior on qmail, postgres, mysql and all
the others with static ids? To me, even keeping static ids seems better
solution.
But since static ids are no longer assigned (despite policy), there should
be some reasonable way out of this and we should find it.
--
jozef :-)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: