On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:48:29AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:38:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's a question you'll have to ask of Yahoo and the SPF people. My guess
> > is that the pushers of these schemes want their thing adopted for whate
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 15:57 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
It is absolutely Debian's job to provide a baseline level of security by
default. Debian doesn't let you install a syste
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:02:04 +0100, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi! Manoj Srivastava [2004-11-05 1:39 -0600]:
>> I would once again like to bring up the possibility of compiling in
>> support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them disabled by
>> default at boot time. [...]
Marcelo E. Magallon, 2004-11-05 01:50:05 +0100 :
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:31:09AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your project registration for Alioth has been denied.
[...]
> > If you decide to use an alioth project to comaintain a package,
> > you need to include a "pkg-" prefix in
Greetings,
I mailed the list recently regarding my ITP AIPS: Astronomical Image
Processing System. For anyone who might have considered sponsoring,
here is some more info regarding its size.
Source tar.gz: 67MB
Initial .deb Size: 148MB
Current .deb Size: 16MB arch dependent, 52MB arch independen
(...)
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
yes, it is. But we have to weight in the needs of our users. We want, after
all, our operating system to be used in a large set of environments and
some of those might break when enabli
> > > IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> > > the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> > > users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen rsyncs.
> >
> > Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figur
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:57:52 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
It is the job of the kernel team to maintain the kernel. That includes
ensuring the kernel runs correctly and quic
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:22:30PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:15:19AM +0100,
> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 47 lines which said:
>
> > If you know easy way to avoid this problem exists, please let me
> > know.
>
> I remail my emai
On Nov 05, Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I'd prefer the default to be selinux=1, but as a temporary
> measure to getting SELinux compiled into the Debian kernel at all, I
> think it is reasonable to make the boot-time default selinux=0 in their
> kernel, as SuSE did with
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:11, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > i would agree with stephen that it should be compiled in,
> > default options "selinux=no".
>
> I don't believe Stephen said that. He said that the performance hit in
>
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 10:11:01AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > >
> > > > def
I think, that this would not be too hard to implement. On the other
hand, there would still be problems that some translations might not be
ready if mozilla* packages become ready to go in. IMHO, doing so
looks like
a trick to declare translations not to be release critical and in fact
inferior t
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> > > default: no.
> >
> > Why not on by default,
>
> i would agree with steph
Hi!
Manoj Srivastava [2004-11-05 1:39 -0600]:
> I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
> compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them
> disabled by default at boot time.
> [...]
> I think this would be really helpful to our users, since the
On Friday 05 November 2004 11:12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
> > compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving
> > them disabled by default at boot time. Th
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:38:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a question you'll have to ask of Yahoo and the SPF people. My guess
> is that the pushers of these schemes want their thing adopted for whatever
> reason (corporate greed, personal gratification, whatever), but
Hi All,
I was considering packaging 'Cube' (http://www.cubeengine.com/) in order
to get to grips with debian package management; and then possibly find a
sponsor.
However, there appears to be a latent licencing problem.
The engine code is distributed under a licence which I believe is free
(zlib
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 23:06, Colin Walters wrote:
> Why don't we just run say EROS (http://www.eros-
> os.org/) instead? A: Because what makes SELinux interesting is that it
> can run all of our legacy software. By not shipping it on everywhere,
> we're not tapping that ability.
Some of us might
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> > default: no.
>
> Why not on by default,
i would agree with stephen that it should be compiled in,
default options "selinux=no".
that gives people th
Christian Perrier wrote:
From a thread in -devel, dated September, after an ITP for Swedish
locale files for Mozilla stuff...
I didn't pay to much attention to that thread, I am discovering it now.
Quoting Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
I agree too. Actua
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
> compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them
> disabled by default at boot time. This can be accomplished by
I second this request.
--
"One disk to rule t
* Matthew Palmer
| See, that's the thing that the FAQ was unclear on. If you don't have to
| sign all headers, then you're OK. I was thinking the attachment of
| Received: headers as being particularly problematic. To quote the FAQ:
|
| "Mailing lists that do not change the content or re-arra
On Thursday 04 November 2004 17.46, Otto Wyss wrote:
> Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figures!
Who is "you" here? Please pay attention to attribution on mailing list
postings - especially if you're starting a new thread with your mail. I
posted this statement about cpu
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.kernel as well.
Hi,
I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them
disabled by default at boot time. Thi
>From a thread in -devel, dated September, after an ITP for Swedish
locale files for Mozilla stuff...
Quoting Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>
> >I agree too. Actually, it makes more sense if we do a single package and
> >integrate there mechanisms to
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:18:43 -0600, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:31:09AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Your project registration for Alioth has been denied.
>>
>> Project Full Name: Window Maker Debian Package Project Unix Name:
>> wmaker
>>
>> R
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:40:41 -0500, Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj, if you're referring to our conversation earlier on IRC, I
> said that I have no personal interest in selinux, but I had no
> problems with it being included as long as it's not a significant
> performance hit.
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:06:06 -0500, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> default: no.
> Why not on by default, with a targeted policy, for everyone?
> SELinux's flexibility allows one to easily turn it off for specifi
29 matches
Mail list logo
