How do we handle this case, then. Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID of 123. It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt. After a while appears a new package acct-user/bar, which takes the 123 UID. Then a user, say Bob, updates their system, which haven't been updated for some time. What if they still have acct-user/foo, when acct-user/bar with the same UID is installed? Should we even care about such cases?
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 11:22 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El jue, 01-01-1970 a las 00:00 +0000, Ulrich Mueller escribió: > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide > > > > > on a > > > > > policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages? > > > > > > > > Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could > > > > ping > > > > the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion > > > > there > > > > seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's > > > > wrong > > > > to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially > > > > forces > > > > the "don't keep them" path. > > > > > The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a > > > policy > > > were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now. > > > > > Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems > > > acceptable > > > to me. > > > > I'd say we remove the packages, because system user and group ids are > > a somewhat scarce resource. > > I agree because of the same reasons > >
