On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:32:18 +0100 Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 20:28 +0000, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:24:08 +0100 > > David Seifert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2019-11-24 at 20:35 +0000, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 17:19:36 +0100 > > > > Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2019, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > > > > > I interpreted 'reserved' as 'free to use' on > > > > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/UID_GID_Assignment > > > > > > Can you tweak it to someting other than 'reserved' so it would be > > > > > > clear? > > > > > > > > > > That's what the "Notes" column was intended for. > > > > > > > > > > > I'll use 60001 .. 60999 / 61001 .. 61999. Is it free though? > > > > > > '60001..65533' claims to also be 'reserved' as well. > > > > > > > > > > Debian is also using the range above 60000 for allocations that > > > > > won't > > > > > fit into the low range. Theoretically, there is some overlap with > > > > > systemd dynamic users (61184..65519), but IIUC assigning other UIDs > > > > > in > > > > > that range isn't a problem, as long as there are enough free IDs > > > > > left. > > > > > > > > > > Another question, the above are about 2000 users and 2000 groups. > > > > > Does that imply that we will eventually end up with 4000 packages > > > > > in acct-{user,group}? > > > > > > > > Should be 2000 users, 2 groups. Worst case it's 2002 packages, yes. > > > > > > > > > > For a package manager that likely only 3 Gentoo users in the world use? > > > > I'll avoid debating you scientific method of deriving that number. > > What is your threshold? 10 users? 1000 users? 100000 users? > > Could you provide some numbers on performance impact of having that many > users? In particular on systems using plain text passwd database. > > > > > > I don't consider that particularly helpful, and am very much inclined > > > to oppose that. > > > > I'm fine with current use of user.eclass if QA grants nix and guix an > > exception to use user.eclass indefinitely instead of GLEP-81 layout. > > I would rather be inclined to give nix and guix a special privilege of > being moved to an overlay. It seems so far that they are unjustly > trying to assume growing number of privileges they have no claim for, > and trying to run their own non-Gentoo shop inside Gentoo for no good > reason. As always great choice of words. So be it. -- Sergei
