On 28 June 2011 17:59, Dan Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In the last episode (Jun 28), Chris Rees said:
>> Hi all,
>> [crees@zeus]~% tail -n 2 /usr/ports/UIDs
>> dbxml:*:949:949::0:0:dbXML user:/nonexistent:/sbin/nologin
>> nobody:*:65534:65534::0:0:Unprivileged user:/nonexistent:/usr/sbin/nologin
>> [crees@zeus]~% grep crees /etc/passwd
>> crees:*:1001:1001:Chris Rees:/home/crees:/bin/tcsh
>> chris:*:1001:1001:Chris Rees:/home/crees:/bin/tcsh
>> I'm a little concerned at how close the ports UIDs are getting to the
>> username space...
> There are only 216 entries in UIDs, though, so if people are just using
> "last entry + 1" when adding new ones, they should probably start filling
> the gaps instead. The 100s and 200s are pretty dense, but 350-399 only has
> 5 entries, 400-499 has 4, 600-699 has 7, 700-799 has 3, etc.
Thank you for pointing that out (d'oh).
However, perhaps we could still address the *potential* problems. To
use one example, Debian has (as long as I can remember) used 10001 for
the first username. When we have 65535 - 99 UIDs to play with,
expansion like this isn't a problem.
Could it be worth it? Think of ten years down the line.