--Wn0J+vu9+NMIXK57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:18:32PM +0900, SODA Noriyuki wrote:
  | >>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:15:41 +0200 (CEST),
  | 	Hubert Feyrer <hubert@feyrer.de> said:
  |=20
  | >> It is better to have particular convention for system users
  | >> to avoid namespace conflict.
  |=20
  | > OK, but this will affect a lot of accounts, no?
  | > (Thinking of possible upgrade fun...)
  |=20
  | If we are going to use the convention for existing system users, yes.
  |=20
  | But I don't think we have to rename existing ones, in that case,
  | there won't be any problem with upgrading.

postinstall can detect & warn about this.  (I wouldn't get postinstall to
_change_ the passwd(5) database, just fail in the "uid" and "gid" fixes)

As for the idea; I see the merit in it.  We can consider it for
other existing per-service chroot/privsep accounts such as "sshd",
"ntpd" and "named".

[ FWIW: technical arguments have more weight than ``We can not do
that because FooOS does it'' or ``That's not Traditional BSD!!!''. ]

--Wn0J+vu9+NMIXK57
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFBQ8XepBhtmn8zJHIRApEUAJ9NSBWiK2SldgcPgPHOvi/aINvcZACfYdeI
m7ybrflaF8ib7ACxwrt4zGk=
=Z+zy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Wn0J+vu9+NMIXK57--