user nobody/ nogroup uid number should be 65534?

[bigpcman]

When I unpack files using tar that contain files that are assigned ownership user nobody / nogroup the unpacked files end up with user 65534. If I then change the uid number for the user nobody / group from 99 to 65534 in the passwd and group files the tar unpacking works correctly. I noticed DSL has the nobody user assigned uid 65534. Does anybody know whats going on here?

[mikshaw]

I don't think UID/GID is necessarily supposed to be anything in particular unless you're talking about root.
Using the same IDs definitely makes things more convenient when sharing files between systems, but it's not required and not generally practiced. Compare Slackware IDs to those in Debian, for example, and you'll find many differences.

[bigpcman]

Is there any reason they can't be the same as dsl? All I know is that this is the root cause of xampp not installing correctly.

[^thehatsrule^]

When I unpack files using tar that contain files that are assigned ownership user nobody / nogroup the unpacked files end up with user 65534.

Actually, that would mean that the archive has the files assigned to id 65534 and not "nobody"

It probably doesn't matter what the number is, like what mikshaw stated.  New users/groups, etc. can be added or changed like what you've done.

[bigpcman]

I noticed there is no usermod command in busybox or in the bash.tce. Is there some other command or is editing the passwd and group files the only way to change the uid?

[roberts]

There does not seem to be an official uid for user nobody.
Knoppix and therefore DSL used 65534, others including Fedora use 99.
I have no issue with a change to 65534 for nobody.

[bigpcman]

Thank you Robert.

[^thehatsrule^]

FWIW, I think the real "fix" would be to have the package itself changed to utilize nobody/nogroup in the archive...

I just recalled that some id guidelines have id's < 100/1000/500 be designated for system services... and everything above it for users.  Perhaps that's why it was 99.