On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 18:18 +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote:
I don't see why it should
be treated specially (unlike root/uid=0);. It's still right at your disposal if you have a package relying on it (e.g. NFS using it as fallback for 'anonymous/unknown') - you just need to specify it.
You forget about users or thirdparty software which is still using nobody for whatever reason. IMO it makes no sense that openSUSE is the only existing Linux distro which does not provide "nobody/nogroup
We will get bug reports for sure if we remove nobody. It doesn't hurt to keep it as it.
BTW "bin" and "daemon" are also missing. They are even *required* by LSB, while "nobody" is optional. http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-PDA/LSB-PDA/usernames.htm l
right - lsb also requires Qt4; so it is definitively an up-to-date reference. But I see no problem of adding
Requires: user(bin) user(daemon) Recommends: user(nobody)
to the lsb package to satisfy the lsb needs - so any thridparty relying on lsb just has to require lsb (as chrome for example already does). Cheers, Dominique