On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:47 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > > > We can also annouce the 200 limit for reserved IDs. ;)
> > >
> > > We can't just make changes to this range. Especially not in the lower
> > > end of it. (and if we c
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 08:07:32 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 05:25:44 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 24,
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:59:20 -0700,
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 09:53 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > Yeah I noticed as well that it tells you you are already logged in if
> > you login in a vt. That seem a much more serious bug.
>
> gdm tells you you're already logged in
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 15:38 -0300, Evandro Fernandes Giovanini wrote:
> Em Sex, 2011-05-27 às 14:20 -0400, Simo Sorce escreveu:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 10:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 09:53 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah I noticed as well that it tell
Em Sex, 2011-05-27 às 14:20 -0400, Simo Sorce escreveu:
> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 10:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 09:53 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah I noticed as well that it tells you you are already logged in if
> > > you login in a vt. That seem a much mor
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 10:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 09:53 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > Yeah I noticed as well that it tells you you are already logged in if
> > you login in a vt. That seem a much more serious bug.
>
> gdm tells you you're already logged in, but th
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 09:53 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Yeah I noticed as well that it tells you you are already logged in if
> you login in a vt. That seem a much more serious bug.
gdm tells you you're already logged in, but that doesn't stop you
logging in again. it's purely informational.
I'm
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:42:26 -0400,
Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> If you click 'other' and type in your username it allows you to login
> right ?
> Does it "remember" your name once you logout ?
>
> If not I call it a bug in gdm.
I wasn't given the other option. Possibly because I have no account
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:35 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 08:25:21 -0500,
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 00:30:53 -0700,
> >
> > I can tell you they didn't. I can't login with gdm right now, most likely
> > because of this. gdm runs but doesn't li
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 08:25:21 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 00:30:53 -0700,
>
> I can tell you they didn't. I can't login with gdm right now, most likely
> because of this. gdm runs but doesn't list any accounts.
> gdm should be looking at shells, not uids to decide
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:25 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 00:30:53 -0700,
> Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > >> reserved/system IDs are supposed t
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 00:30:53 -0700,
Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> reserved/system IDs are supposed to be once that has been done we can
> >> start looking at what is th
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:52:34AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 07:39 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> > ons 2011-05-25 klockan 12:37 -0500 skrev Dennis Gilmore:
> >
> > > another issue that i thought of was existing ldap/nis systems that
> > > allocate
> > > regular users i
tor 2011-05-26 klockan 08:52 -0400 skrev Simo Sorce:
> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 07:39 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> > Personally I think UIDs and their relation to user accounts should be
> > treated as host-local. I also want a pony.
>
> It would be nice, but then there is NFS ...
Oh yes I'm
On 5/26/11 5:56 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> system users now have more space but they are not going to immediately
> overflow about the uid 500 area, for most installations they will still
> keeping being well below 500. And if your LDAP server has IDs below 500
> you are already in a world of pain. If
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 00:30 -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> reserved/system IDs are supposed to be once that has been done we can
> >> start looking at what is the best a
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:04 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 03:14:43 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > > On 05/25/2011 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > > Coordination would be nice if we can decide on how w
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 07:39 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> ons 2011-05-25 klockan 12:37 -0500 skrev Dennis Gilmore:
>
> > another issue that i thought of was existing ldap/nis systems that allocate
> > regular users in the 500-1000 range when installing or upgrading if they
> > use
> > polic
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:27 +0200, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 08:07:32 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > > We can also annouce the 200 limit for reserved IDs. ;)
> >
> > We can't just make changes to this range.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> reserved/system IDs are supposed to be once that has been done we can
>> start looking at what is the best approach to implement and or fix
>> things that might break because o
Hi,
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 08:07:32 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 05:25:44 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > I'd like
ons 2011-05-25 klockan 12:37 -0500 skrev Dennis Gilmore:
> another issue that i thought of was existing ldap/nis systems that allocate
> regular users in the 500-1000 range when installing or upgrading if they use
> policies that probit system accounts from logging in will have users unable
> t
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 03:14:43 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 05/25/2011 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > Coordination would be nice if we can decide on how we can sanely make
> > > changes to this.
> >
> > I would think f
On 05/25/2011 08:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 05/25/2011 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> Coordination would be nice if we can decide on how we can sanely make
>>> changes to this.
>> I would think first is to reach conscious
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Coordination would be nice if we can decide on how we can sanely make
> > changes to this.
>
> I would think first is to reach consciousness on what the
Do you mean consesus ? W
On 05/25/2011 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Coordination would be nice if we can decide on how we can sanely make
> changes to this.
I would think first is to reach consciousness on what the
reserved/system IDs are supposed to be once that has been done we can
start looking at what is the b
2011/5/25 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 05/25/2011 12:30 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:25:44 AM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN& GID_MIN from 500 t
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 05:25:44 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500 to
>> > 1000 in upgraded
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 03:55:55 AM Peter Vrabec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 05:25:44 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500
> > > to 1000
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
>
> I'm not against wider announcement. I'm just not sure what is the right way -
> F16 Feature/Release Notes/ ?
How about slashdot's front page? Must be a really slow news day.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/05/25/1312200/Fedora-16-
On 05/25/2011 12:30 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:25:44 AM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN& GID_MIN from 500 to
>>> 1000 in upgraded shadow-utils.
>>>
>>
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:55 +0200, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 05:25:44 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500 to
> > > 1000 in u
Hi,
On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 05:25:44 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500 to
> > 1000 in upgraded shadow-utils.
> >
> > Where?
> > /etc/login.defs.
> > shadow-u
On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:25:44 AM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500 to
> > 1000 in upgraded shadow-utils.
> >
> > Where?
> > /etc/login.defs.
> > shadow-utils-
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:45 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> On 05/24/2011 09:20 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 08:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> >> * This could potentially break sites that are currently using the
> >> 500-1000 UID range and rely on the order of allocation of UI
On 05/24/2011 09:20 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 08:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> * This could potentially break sites that are currently using the
>> 500-1000 UID range and rely on the order of allocation of UIDs for
>> their users on new machines matching with the UIDs on
On Tue, 24.05.11 12:20, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > * AFAIK, we actually have not run into the 500 uid limit yet (although
> > it is a bit low to be comfortable)
> > * AFAIK, we've only allocated the range 0-100 for reserved IDs.
> > * The 0-100 reserved IDs are actually the pain poin
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 08:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500 to
> > 1000
> > in upgraded shadow-utils.
> >
> > Where?
> > /etc/login.defs.
> > shadow-utils
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500 to 1000
> in upgraded shadow-utils.
>
> Where?
> /etc/login.defs.
> shadow-utils-4.1.4.3-1.fc16
>
> I suppose UID/GID_MIN=1000 is more common(other distros, upst
Hi all,
I'd like to inform you that I have changed UID_MIN & GID_MIN from 500 to 1000
in upgraded shadow-utils.
Where?
/etc/login.defs.
shadow-utils-4.1.4.3-1.fc16
I suppose UID/GID_MIN=1000 is more common(other distros, upstream). We are not
in situation that 500 IDs for system accounts ought
40 matches
Mail list logo
