UID/GID

Jeremy Utley jeremy at jutley.org
Sat Apr 23 11:53:03 PDT 2005


Archaic wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:47:36AM -0700, Jeremy Utley wrote:
>  
>
>>The problem is, if the book, as it is currently written, is followed, 
>>then system users & groups will be created as non-system.
>>    
>>
>
>But that doesn't actually matter, it is merely an historical issue that
>*may* have been relevant way back when, but also may have just been the
>way things were done with no real affect on anything. I'm not sure. The
>only UID that should *possibly* still be assumed is 0. There is no
>actual difference in system behavior between UID 99 and UID 100 unless
>someone knows of a horribly broken package out there that makes such
>assumptions. It should be strictly a local policy issue.
>  
>
Agreed.  But, my feeling is that the BLFS book, which strives on 
education, should provide a "best practices" type of situation, and 
IMHO, best practices would be to assign low UID/GID's to system 
users/groups, and to standardize the UID/GID in the book.  Those of us 
who do other things can always will always be free to alter to our own 
practices.  Since the change is a matter of adding -g {number} to 
groupadd and -u {number} to useradd, it'll be a relatively simple 
change, with little effect.

I can see both sides of the argument, but, given the number of 
situations where trying to standardize the users/groups can help matters 
(think NFS mounting), I personally think setting up a standard for 
user/group numbering would be a good thing.

-J-



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list