On Tue, Feb 19, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:09:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 08:42:38PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > I would lobby to change the spec not to mention bin, daemon, or any > > of the optional users/groups, at all. They are not specified in a > > useful way, so they're at best dead-weight, and at worst an > > opportunity for conflicting interpretations. > > IIRC, I think the reasoning went as follows: > - The LSB format is based on RPM which has a CPIO archive > - CPIO archives store uid/gids as numbers, not names > - Installed programs may want to use the daemon user > - Hence the daemon user must have a fixed uid
Have you ever looked at RPM? I don't know which cpio format the RPM internal cpio is using, but the above is wrong, the demon user must not have a fixed uid. RPM does not depend on fixed uids. > Kind of funny that we would have to start changing the mappings of uids > just because some people decided to use RPM as a standard install format. Which is also wrong. This has nothing to do with the fact that LSB has decide to use the RPMv3 package format for delivering programs. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux AG Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
