On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 04:53:26PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > Do you know what version libuuid was initially installed? I suspect > > one of the problems was fixed in libuuid1 1.40.7-1 (See #466929). If > > you agree, the initial report (#471667) can be closed. > > The current testing version (the same version of all packages gets installed > in both attempts): 1.40.6-1. > > But from #466929: > ! Actually, adduser and addgroup automatically avoids the range 1-99, > ! even if UID_MIN and/or GID_MIN is set to 1. > > >From my grep output it looks like libuuid is getting 42/101. > If the above statement is true then why is UID 42 assigned? > > #466929 may fix that, but doesn't that still leave a bug in adduser that > 1-99 _should_ have been avoided automatically? If the range is reserved, it > really should not be left to other packages to avoid it. See #459403 (I haven't checked snapshot.d.n, but I note that the changelog seems to be void of an entry detailing the new use of a dynamic user). Apparently libuuid1 used to pass UID_MIN=1 (likewsie for GID_MIN). It seems reasonable to support this (for local, site-specific administrative policy), and base-passwd won't blindly clobber the change. But package maintainers should have to pass UID_MIN=100.
Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]