sheld...@uunet.co.za said: :- Emotional arguments and matters of personal preference aren't :- helpful.
The only emotional argumentation seems to be yours. A "technical" objection was made that it seems best for ports to create whatever resources they need, and not polute base distribution with them. To me that seems to be quite a compeling argument. A "technical" observation was made that many ports needing this specific kind of resource (a uid or gid) already do just this. This also seems pretty compelling. Another "technical" objection was made that in large environment, these "reserved" uid and gid things are very *very* problematic because each vendor does it a different way. This is often overlooked by developers, but it is a major interoperability problem for those of us who try to deploy Freebsd in shops with thousands of computers using NIS. Ports maintainers should try to remember to consider this. Finally, I'll add my own "technical" observatios: there is no reason why multiple ports chouldn't *choose* to use the same uid or gid or username or whatever, but that isn't a good reason to add it to the base system. Also, adding it to the base system unnecessarily complicates maintenance (because, should one of the ports be changed to require *another* uid or gid, you would either have to go back and modify the base system, or you would be back in the situation you are already in by requiring the port to add the new uid/gid). So, I'd suggest this proposal *not* be addopted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA, w...@rwwa.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
