Aaaah, now i see what you're getting at :o) You explained it pretty well, I just didnt cotton on to the fact that you were using 60,000 as an arbitrary number. I spose we'll have to wait and see how the RFE goes - hopefully there is some sort of solution implemented whether its the high / low stuff or the uniqueness or something else Redhat come up with.
<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 01/12/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Robin Laing</b> <<a href="mailto:Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca">Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Dave Brown wrote:<br>> I have had a look at the RFE you filed and to be honest i disagree with<br>> the way you have asked for it to be fixed. By selecting the GIDs in
<br>> decending order from 60,000 down and the uid ascending from 500 there<br>> still exists the possibility for these 2 numbers to collide if you have<br>> more than 59500 users / groups. Granted this is a large number but for
<br>> big institutions / companies this isnt unreasonable. I personally have<br>> worked with two installations that this numbering scheme would have<br>> caused problems.<br>><br>> I believe that the underlying code should be changed so that when adding
<br>> a user the lowest available number which is not currently used by either<br>> a group or user should be the one selected. That way you can have as<br>> many users as you want (up to 2^32 of course :o) without running into
<br>> any clashes.<br>><br>> I will add a note to your RFE explaining my thoughts and see what RedHat<br>> reckon. Thanks for your input.<br>><br>> Cheers<br>> Dave<br>><br>> On 26/11/05, *Robin Laing * <
<a href="mailto:Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca">Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca">Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
<br>> > On Thu, 2005-24-11 at 09:31 +0000, Dave Brown wrote:<br>> ><br>> >>Robin / Others - what do you think? Depending on the general<br>> consensus<br>> >>I'll probably submit a feature enhancement request.
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > If you do enter a RFE, can you send a reply to this thread with<br>> bugzilla<br>> > #? I'd like to watch it since I've recently run into this problem -
<br>> > it's a major pain in the ass.<br>> ><br>> > Regards,<br>> ><br>> > Ranbir<br>> ><br>><br>> I entered an RFE this afternoon.<br>> Bug 174205
<br>><br>> Robin.<br>><br>Some times I am not that good at explaining things.<br><br>I have added to the RFE taking your comments into account as you will<br>see. I am reposting some of my comments here for the list.
<br><br>I used 60,00 as an arbitrary number. If Fedora can work with 2^32<br>GID's then change 60,000 to 2^32 and work from there. It isn't a big<br>deal.<br><br>The idea is to search from high to low for GID's and low to high for
<br>UID/GID combos.<br><br>This also minimizes any holes in the UID/GID mix unless users are deleted.<br><br>Thanks for the suggestion.<br><br>--<br>fedora-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fedora-list@redhat.com">fedora-list@redhat.com
</a><br>To unsubscribe: <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list</a><br></blockquote></div><br>