Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
On Tue, Feb 19, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:09:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 08:42:38PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > I would lobby to change the spec not to mention bin, daemon, or any
> > of the optional users/groups, at all. They are not specified in a
> > useful way, so they're at best dead-weight, and at worst an
> > opportunity for conflicting interpretations.
>
> IIRC, I think the reasoning went as follows:
> - The LSB format is based on RPM which has a CPIO archive
> - CPIO archives store uid/gids as numbers, not names
> - Installed programs may want to use the daemon user
> - Hence the daemon user must have a fixed uid
Have you ever looked at RPM? I don't know which cpio format the RPM
internal cpio is using, but the above is wrong, the demon user must
not have a fixed uid. RPM does not depend on fixed uids.
> Kind of funny that we would have to start changing the mappings of uids
> just because some people decided to use RPM as a standard install format.
Which is also wrong. This has nothing to do with the fact that LSB
has decide to use the RPMv3 package format for delivering programs.
Thorsten
--
Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
Reply to: