UID_MIN & GID_MIN changed

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 03:14:43 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 05/25/2011 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > Coordination would be nice if we can decide on how we can sanely make
> > > changes to this.
> > 
> > I would think first is to reach consciousness on what the
> 
> Do you mean consesus ? We are pretty conscious of the uid/gid problem
> space I believe :)
> 
> > reserved/system IDs are supposed to be once that has been done we can
> > start looking at what is the best approach to implement and or fix
> > things that might break because of it.
> 
> Changing the reserved id space should break "only" new allocations on
> systems that may have used the newly allocated IDs already.
> The only way to fix that is to have the admin manually intervene after
> the error is brought to his attanetion.
> 
> Of course a softer way to deal with this is to not change the defaults
> on upgrade if checks reveals IDs in the affected space. The problem is
> that it may not be easy to determine this, esp when centralized ID are
> also available via NIS/LDAP.

new installs in places with legacy systems cand and likely will be effected 
with the result in cases being that users can not log into systems any longer.

Dennis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110525/006d7ce2/attachment.bin