> > On the contrary. For almost all practical use cases you care about what > > user/group owns a file, not what UID/GID they happen to be. E.g., in the > > recipe (or Makefile or whatever) you typically want to specify that a > > file shall be owned by user foo, not UID 1234. Then, either you do not > > care about the actual UIDs used, or if you do, you use statically assigned > > UIDs/GIDs for all users/groups. This is typically necessary if you want > > to be able to support upgrading your product, and it is very well > > supported by the useradd-staticids.bbclass. > > Interesting, thanks for the background. Out of curiosity, what is the > difference between using useradd-staticids.bbclass vs. using > normal useradd.bbclass but hardcoding the GIDs/UIDs anyway? I ask because > meta-skeleton/recipes-skeleton/useradd/useradd- > example.bb does the latter.
Actually never mind, sorry. I see how it works in https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/latest/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#var-USERADDEXTENSION. Chris -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
