Re: Policy for 32-bit uids/gids?
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:08:45 -0500, Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> said:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 12:41:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:41 -0500, Steve Langasek
>> <vorlon@netexpress.net> said:
>> > If Debian ever hopes to have a policy beyond "all remaining uids
>> > and gids are reserved for local use", it's important to stake our
>> > claim *before* 32-bit ids are universally supported -- that is,
>> > before they're in widespread use at sites, and site admins have
>> > already deployed schemas that conflict with any default we might
>> > choose.
>> Is there a need for us to have a policy such as that? Is this
>> policy any good if it is in conflict with the other distributions
>> and other UNIX like machines in the environment?
> Are you suggesting that I should pick an id range for Samba's use in
> the absence of Policy's endorsement of the practice, or that
> attempting to implement this at all is untenable?
If all we are talking about is the id range for samba, all we
need is a document like the virtual packages list, and people should
have the package name and range of id's added to that document before
using it.
However, this is unlikely to be much use to users in a
heterogeneous environment -- we really need to get the buy in of a
larger body like the LSB or IETF or IANA.
manoj
--
What matters is not the length of the wand, but the magic in the
stick.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: