Re: rename fedora-usermgmt?
On 05.03.2007 12:32, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:47:41PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
> On 3/4/07, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> Once upon a time Sunday 04 March 2007, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>>> I see fedora-usermgmt has been made available for EPEL. That is
>>>>> probably going to cause some confusion. Maybe rename it into
>>>>> system-usermgmt or something more distribution neutral. The other
>>>>> packages except for fedora-ds-base are all indeed specific to
Fedora.
>>>> Why don't we just remove it?
>>> Mike, i know you hate it :) but alot of packages use it.
>> More packages don't use it and no packages in RHEL use it. I'll stop
>> now, I don't want to be "that guy" :-D
> Can I be that guy. Personally I think F-U-M has caused me more
> problems moving apps over into an enterprise environment. Trying to
> get packages installed before LDAP is up etc and having to deal with
> oh look clamav is now the same as Johnny the Hacker.
FWIW I hate it, too, anyone here around with other feelings for that?
Maybe we're all "that guy" ;)
Anyway please kill and *ban* it, we should endorse using that mechanism.
If an application really needs a fixed uid/gid let's provide it one
and let's fix the uid/gid 100-499 space being eaten from low to high
(high to low would be 1000x better) which is dangling for years. If
non-fixed system account had been assigned 499 lowwards then we'd have
now space to extend to say uid/gid 200 ...
Just my 2 cent: Yes, we need to find a solution, whatever that might
look like. Writing and enforcing a fedora-usermgmt successor could be
one, extending the UID/GID space another one. Someone just needs to
drive the whole issue forward and get it approved by the Fedora
community, FPC and FESCo.
But the current mix of using fedora-usermgmt in some packages and not
using it in others just sucks.
CU
thl