On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 02:27:06PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:44:22PM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Here's a patch to document the 32-bit nature of UIDs, in line with Ben's
> > suggestion (which seems sound to me).
> 
> I miss the special case of 32-bit wide -2, aka nobody as used by nfs.
> It should be reserved at least.

Please find an updated patch.
Do you have a reference for this I could add ?

Does it look OK ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[email protected]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 0ade396..28ce1e9 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
 debian-policy (3.9.7.0) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Policy: refreshed the names of the Policy Editors.
+  * Policy: [9.2.2] document 32-bit uids
+    Wording: Matthew Vernon <[email protected]>
+    Seconded: Russ Allbery <[email protected]>
+    Seconded: Bill Allombert <[email protected]>
 
- -- Bill Allombert <[email protected]>  Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:00:10 +0100
+ -- Bill Allombert <[email protected]>  Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:00:41 +0100
 
 debian-policy (3.9.6.1) unstable; urgency=low
 
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 7bb703b..cf4174c 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -7351,6 +7351,36 @@ rmdir /usr/local/share/emacs 2>/dev/null || true
              <tag>65535:</tag>
              <item>
                <p>
+                 This value <em>must not</em> be used, because it was
+                 the error return sentinel value when <tt>uid_t</tt>
+                 was 16 bits.
+               </p>
+             </item>
+
+             <tag>65536-4294967293:</tag>
+             <item>
+               <p>
+                 Dynamically allocated user accounts.  By
+                 default <prgn>adduser</prgn> will not allocate UIDs
+                 and GIDs in this range, to ease compatibility with
+                 legacy systems where <tt>uid_t</tt> is still 16
+                 bits.
+               </p>
+             </item>
+
+             <tag>4294967294:</tag>
+             <item>
+               <p>
+                 <tt>(uid_t)(-2) == (gid_t)(-2)</tt> <em>must
+                 not</em> be used, because it is mistaken for
+                  <tt>65534</tt> <prgn>nobody</prgn> by some
+                  programs.
+               </p>
+             </item>
+
+             <tag>4294967295:</tag>
+             <item>
+               <p>
                  <tt>(uid_t)(-1) == (gid_t)(-1)</tt> <em>must
                  not</em> be used, because it is the error return
                  sentinel value.

Reply via email to