On 16 June 2017 at 20:15, Karl Palsson wrote:
>
> Daniel Golle wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:30:14AM -, Karl Palsson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I fairly strong feel that this change brings no value to the
>> > table.
>>
>> I disagree. For now, the two allocation schemes (hardcoded vs.
>> dy
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:15:19PM -, Karl Palsson wrote:
>
> Daniel Golle wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:30:14AM -, Karl Palsson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I fairly strong feel that this change brings no value to the
> > > table.
> >
> > I disagree. For now, the two allocation sc
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:30:14AM -, Karl Palsson wrote:
>
>
> I fairly strong feel that this change brings no value to the
> table.
I disagree. For now, the two allocation schemes (hardcoded vs.
dynamic) are competing for the same address space. This can
result in a hard-coded UID/GID to b
There already exist static assignment of uid/gid 65533 in packages feed
and we have nobody/nogroup taking 65534 as their ids. Let's change the
pid of dynamic assignment to start from 65536 so that the two assignment
scheme will not collide with each other
While at it, fix the scan command checkin
