Anthony Towns writes:
> So, it seems like we have the following opinions:
>
> In the long term, have fine grained control that leaves disks as
> root:disk 0660, and other devices with other appropriate groups.
>-- in favour: everyone?
>
> Immediately, until the above is implem
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:47:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:33:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ... follow-up to self: given that crypt-dm sits on top of devmapper, it is
> > > indeed plausible that one w
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... follow-up to self: given that crypt-dm sits on top of devmapper, it is
> indeed plausible that one would want to prevent members of group disk from
> reading the decrypted volume.
So don't use group disk in that context.
Just because a f
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:33:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... follow-up to self: given that crypt-dm sits on top of devmapper, it is
> > indeed plausible that one would want to prevent members of group disk from
> > reading the decrypte
On 2/10/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes ("Re: #342455"):
> > On 2/10/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> channelled:
> > > The proposed change to devmapper changes the permissions for all block
> > > devices, doesn't it ? Whereas the other debian defaults vary from
On 2/10/06, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Otherwise, having access to the underlying block devices means having access
> > to meddle with anything on the LVM devices as well.
>
> And who says that anyone have access to
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:48:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > It's also inconsistent over time on many single machines.
> I agree that the current situation is unsatisfactory. But I think (at
> the moment, at least) that it should be fixed by adopting Bastian's
> code fragments with an appropri
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:56AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Otherwise, having access to the underlying block devices means having access
> > to meddle with anything on the LVM devices as well.
> And who says that anyone have
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:29:39PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Raul Miller writes ("Re: #342455"):
> > > I agree that the devmapper default should match other
> > > debian defaults, and vice-versa.
> > If I may try to channel Bast
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:29:39PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raul Miller writes ("Re: #342455"):
> > I agree that the devmapper default should match other
> > debian defaults, and vice-versa.
> If I may try to channel Bastian Blank for a moment:
> The proposed change to devmapper changes the pe
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Otherwise, having access to the underlying block devices means having access
> to meddle with anything on the LVM devices as well.
And who says that anyone have access to the underlying device?
Bastian
--
... The prejudices peopl
Raul Miller writes ("Re: #342455"):
> On 2/10/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> channelled:
> > The proposed change to devmapper changes the permissions for all block
> > devices, doesn't it ? Whereas the other debian defaults vary from one
> > kind of device to another. For example, floppies a
On 2/10/06, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did read this, and I'm happy progress is being made. However, the
> default is still currently wrong in unstable, and the fix is a simple
> change to configure in debian/rules.
I agree that the devmapper default should match other
debian defa
On 2/10/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> channelled:
> The proposed change to devmapper changes the permissions for all block
> devices, doesn't it ? Whereas the other debian defaults vary from one
> kind of device to another. For example, floppies are g+w floppy.
The change to devmapper is i
Raul Miller writes ("Re: #342455"):
> I agree that the devmapper default should match other
> debian defaults, and vice-versa.
If I may try to channel Bastian Blank for a moment:
The proposed change to devmapper changes the permissions for all block
devices, doesn't it ? Whereas the other debian
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2/2/06, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's nearly a month since the last mail to this bug. Is this getting
>> close to being resolved?
>
> Did you notice the content of the message before yours in this bug's
> history? It's from Bastian Bl
On 2/2/06, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's nearly a month since the last mail to this bug. Is this getting
> close to being resolved?
Did you notice the content of the message before yours in this bug's
history? It's from Bastian Blank, and includes among other things the
statement
Hi folks,
It's nearly a month since the last mail to this bug. Is this getting
close to being resolved?
Many thanks,
Roger
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
G
18 matches
Mail list logo
