Hi,
quite often I just want to disable a service in /etc/init.d. But there
doesn't seem to be a standard way to do that.
Many services have a file in /etc/defaults, where the service can be
disabled. In that case, however, the service also can't be started
manually.
In http://bugs.debian.org/cgi
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:27:27 +0200
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 02:11:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 13:18 +0200, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> >>> quite often I ju
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:24:46 +0200
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:42:35 +0200, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >There is also the option to install file-rc and just edit
> >/etc/runlevel.conf with an editor if you don't want to cope
> >with the symlink hel
ems with that approach, which
would suggest that the "exit 0" or "chmod a-x" approaches are far
superior when you want to completely disable a service.
Cheers,
harry
>
> 在 2008-07-26六的 13:18 +0200，Harald Braumann写道：
> > Hi,
> >
> > quite often I ju
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:56:07 -0400
Guido Günther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We might not want to use policy-rc.d as is in sysvinit of filerc
> during startup but we might consider moving these policy decisions
> "no I don't want this daemon at startup, yes I want that daemon
> reloaded after res
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:04:05 +0100
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:28:09PM +, Russell Coker wrote:
> >> The creation of a fake picture of Manoj wearing leather makes it
> >> clear that Joss was intending to make an insinuation of
> >> homosex
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:45:05 +0100
"Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/26, David Given <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> >
> > > I'd really rather see something nicer than an ant as a mascot. :)
> >
> > How about a cockroach? Beautifully engineered, indestructable, and
Hi,
I'd like to package mu-conference 0.7 (multi-user chat component for
jabber). The version currently in Debian (jabber-muc 0.6.0) uses the
user ``jabber'', which is created by jabber-common, on which
jabber-muc depends.
The new version can be installed stand-alone, and thus there won't be
any
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:55:31 +0100
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Harald Braumann wrote:
> > package's directories for the new user. But a downgrade would then
> > not be possible. The old version couldn't access the directories.
> >
> > Is there pre
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:51:29 +0100
"Francesco P. Lovergine" wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:35:49AM +0100, Harald Braumann wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK, there's no way for multiple independent packages for using
> > the same user.
> >
>
> Why not?
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:15:47 -0800
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Harald Braumann writes:
> > "Francesco P. Lovergine" wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:35:49AM +0100, Harald Braumann wrote:
>
> >>> AFAIK, there's no way for multiple in
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:57:11 -0800
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:49:17PM +0100, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > > Well, yes, but I don't see why you'd need a globally allocated
> > > user. Why don't you just use the same username as the other
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:57:11 -0800
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:49:17PM +0100, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > > Well, yes, but I don't see why you'd need a globally allocated
> > > user. Why don't you just use the same username as the other
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:25:53 -0500
Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Harald Braumann [090113 16:49]:
> > Well, jabber-common does remove the user jabber on purge, jabberd2,
> > though, doesn't. And it seems that opinions diverge on this matter.
> > See e.g.
> > http:/
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:49:22 -0500
"Jamin W. Collins" wrote:
> Marvin Renich wrote:
> > * Harald Braumann [090113 05:47]:
> >>
> >> AFAIK, there's no way for multiple independent packages for using
> >> the same user. So jabber-muc needs to cre
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:14:03 -0800
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, sean finney
> wrote:
> > or /proc/bus/usb or /dev/shm or /dev/pts... :)
> >
>
> /dev is a bit different though - even if it's mounted as a udev fs,
> you can create a new directory in there to act as a mount
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:40:39 -0800
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Harald Braumann
> wrote:
> >
> > So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
> > are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
&
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:35:48 +0900
Paul Wise wrote:
> How about letting the person doing the installation write the labels
> if they want to use LABEL and use UUID by default.
>
Or as a third option, put everything in LVM, including boot and root,
and the problem goes away. GRUB2 would have to be
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:19:37 +0100
José Luis Tallón wrote:
> [...]
> whereas I can't fathom why a cgroup "feels" like a /device/.
>
> I admit not being an expert in virtualization abstraction (I do run a
> significant number of virtual machines, tough), but in fact /sys seems
> to be a much bette
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:36:38 +
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Feb 24 23:44, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On mar, 2009-02-24 at 17:33 -0500, Michael S. Gilbert wrote:
> > > here is
> > > a .desktop file that looks like it is iceweasel, but really it
> > > downloads an essentially random file,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:28:52 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Of course, there's no miracle. For the merge to work automatically and
> the result to be valid, the semantic of the configuration file must be
> known by Config::Model. This is done by describing the structure and
> constraints of the
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:32:08 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Harald Braumann writes:
>
> > I don't really know Config::Model. But the main problem I have with
> > the current system is, that I only see diffs between the currently
> > installed version and the ne
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:08:00 -0600
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well. If the maintainer so desires, ucf does have this to say:
> ,[ Manual page ucf(1) ]
> | --three-way
I thought I remembered seeing smth. like this.
> Seems like this is what is desired;
Yes, this is exactl
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:28:39 -0500
Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at getting a video card, and I want to know what video
> card that has 3D acceleration to get. Normally I'd ask on -users but
> as the subject says I want to know what video cards will still have
> acceleration whe
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:35:56 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> > But then we are back at the issue of a 80-20 problem, and I see the
> > VCS solution as more flexible and more readily available.
>
> Agreed. But VCS solution is a 80% success/20% silent
> failure. Confi
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:51:09 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Only, in this case, we need it abstracted (which it already is), and
> we need it to _remain_ abstracted.
>
> Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
> it will be either completely impossible, or
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:03:10 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
>
> > I also use lilo for /boot on LVM and I also clearly remember that
> > was the major reason for the previous debate about the removal of
> > lilo.
>
> Grub2 in lenny and later contain
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:24:54 -0500
William Pitcock wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 16:17 +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > Yes, I do and it works without problems. There are some
> > inconveniences, though, with grub2, which might make some stick
> > with LILO:
>
>
>
> === "Debian's Shortlist": ===
> =
>
> - Aptitude Package Management History Tracking
/var/log/dpkg.log?
harry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:15:56 +0200
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That said, it looks like that having things just work on the desktop
> require hal anyway and I fail to see why we would have to reinvent
> other solutions (like continuing to maintain/create many hacks in
> acpi-support) when we could c
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:19:07 +0200
Stefan Ott wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 17:45, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> > Nevertheless, since ntpdate used to be quite popular, I figured I'd
> > better ask here for objections.
>
> I still use it when a system's clock is way off and I just want it t
On Thu, 07 May 2009 08:01:11 +0200
Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
> > Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:06:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> >>> also sprach Carsten Hey [2009.05.05.1645
> >>> +0200]:
> >
> >>> FWIW, Ubuntu did what I consider the right thing:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:28:33 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 13:23 +0200, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> > No, please don't use an esoteric mailer. People who don't know and
> > don't want to know about their local mailer don't need to know
On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a
> standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth
> mentioning does it (not
On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
Michael Banck wrote:
> I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author said
> you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?". Whether or
> not that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user could be
> configurable.
I can't think
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:59:03 -0300
David Bremner wrote:
> Harald Braumann wrote:
>
> >[1 ]
> >On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
> >Michael Banck wrote:
>
> >> I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author
> >> said yo
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:51:58 -0500
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I think everyone readying this list is more than aware of the
> intention to switch to dash as the default /bin/sh.
> A lot of work has been done on many sides to make this switch doable
> and as smooth as po
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:42:44 +0800
sha liu wrote:
> 2009/7/20 Goswin von Brederlow
>
> > sha liu writes:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > > Is there any easy method to get all the *source* packages
> > > which are
> > the
> > > build dependency of one package?
> > > What I want to do is buil
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:45:40 +0200
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 13:09 +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of
> > tomcat to utf-8 after reinstalling a server.
> > Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat,
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:28:08 -0500
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Harald Braumann dijo [Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:33:58AM +0200]:
> > > There are a lot of users out there that are not willing to pay the
> > > price for increased generality.
> >
> > Don't you mean s/us
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:03:30 +0100
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > I'm not sure, whether a conclusion is already reached.
> >
> > 1. apt-get install mysql
> > 2. enter mysql client
> > 3. create database test; create table test( test char(10)
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:03:43 +0100
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44:36PM +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:03:30 +0100
> > Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Thomas Koch wrote:
&
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:43:11 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
>
> > while watching rsnapshot doing a backup of my laptop, I thought:
> > Wouldn't it be fine, to have a registry of cache directories that
> > shouldn't be backed up?
> ...
> > So a debia
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:21:07 +0200
Frans Pop wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > I personally prefer not to be CCed on bug reports. I don't want to
> > recieve any mail about a bug unless it is asking me to supply more
> > information.
>
> So you *do* want to be CCed if the maintainer needs more infor
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:45:11 +0100
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it’s been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
> processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesn’t correspond anymore to
> the way we use our machines.
> * I don’t think we need more than 2 of these.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:07:52 +0100
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 10:33 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> > I don't see any real arguments against the set-up as it is now or
> > for a new way to do it.
>
> There are no real arguments for
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:39:06 +0100
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> > > Just because it is a tradition doesn’t mean it’s the correct way.
> > So far I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be th
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 03:06:20AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> In this day and age of completely and utterly broken MD5[0], I think we
> should stop providing these files, and maybe provide something else
> instead. Like, I dunno, shasums? Or perhaps gpgsigs? But stop providing
> md5sums.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Harald Braumann [100303 14:49]:
> > But it would be great if the whole chain, from beginning to end, was
> > secured, even against a malicious and presumably very powerful attackers.
>
> Checksums
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:12:26AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
> > In this day and age of completely and utterly broken MD5[0], I think we
> > should stop providing these files, and maybe provide something else
> > instead. Like, I dunno, shasums? Or perhaps gpgsigs? But stop providing
> > md5sum
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:02:01PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Julien Cristau]
> > > fundamentally, shipping a md5sums file is really just a tradeoff in
> > > download size vs. installation speed, not unlike gzip vs. bzip2. One
> >
> > Only if you assume that disks never fail and thus fil
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 04:20:36PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:58:11 +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> > Signed debs may introduce a fake sense of security (Only apt repository
> > provide security updates). By signing packages, user may assume that a
> > package is safe whe
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 03:14:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Harald Braumann writes:
>
> > Completely agreed. Also, because playing around is always more fun than
> > just talking, I've attached a script that signs/verifies binary
> > packages. Dpkg doesn&#
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:41:26PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Harald Braumann]
> > > Given a .deb, turning the data.tar.gz into foo.md5sums is a SMOP.
> > > This could be before, during, or after the deb is unpacked.
>
> > If you create the hashes at un
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:50:28PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Harald Braumann]
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:41:26PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > >
> > > [Harald Braumann]
> > > > > Given a .deb, turning the data.tar.gz into foo.md5s
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:40:57PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> Hello Josselin and everybody,
>
> I concur to much that has been written about obsolete manpages. In the past I
> often wrote manpages for my new packages, and in many cases they became a
> burden for me as a package maintainer w
Hi,
I'd like to propose a `sensible-mailer' command. The main usage would
be to handle `mailto' links. But maybe such functionality already exists
and I'm just not aware of it, or there are specific reasons for not
implementing this.
The script should accept a `mailto' link as its parameter and t
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> On 05.03.2010 15:18, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >Le vendredi 05 mars 2010 à 15:06 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> >>I'd like to propose a `sensible-mailer' command. The main usage would
> >
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:10:26PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Harald Braumann, le Fri 05 Mar 2010 15:06:28 +0100, a écrit :
> > I'd like to propose a `sensible-mailer' command.
>
> Well, there is /etc/alternatives/mailx
You can't set, e.g., mutt as an alternat
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:46:40PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> Le 05/03/2010 15:43, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> >> On 05.03.2010 15:18, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >>> Le vendredi 05 m
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:04:24PM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:59 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 1. Strengthen the integrity check so that it could potentially be useful
> >for security purposes as well as for simple integrity checking.
>
> It would be much easier i
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 05:59:13PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The missing link, in this validation scenario, is how to get a signed copy
> > of the MD5 checksums of the files in the package.
>
> That's one missing link. The other one is that there are innumerable
> ways for
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:49:54PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > It's also always worth bearing in mind that while a really good attacker
> > can do all sorts of complex things that make them very hard to find, most
> > attackers are stupid and straightforward.
>
> It's stupid
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:50:59AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Frank Lin PIAT]
> > Please, let's do the easy move *now* for Squeeze, using shasums, and
> > go ahead later with an even better solution.
>
> Drawbacks: more CPU time on build daemons, slightly larger binary
> packages to downl
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:32:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> Having package.checksums be GPG-signed will take a significant change in
> our infrastructure (buildd hosts, for instance, would need to have a way
> to sign checksums files as well), so it's not going to happen
> tomorrow.
I was
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 09:44:03AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there any good documentation about best practices for OpenPGP key
> management? I plan to use gnupg (gpg), as it's conventional and seems like
> the "best of breed" these days.
>
> Most documentation I've found seems si
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:58:28AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I don't think signing the checksum file itself will be feasable as that
> would alter the contents of the deb and change the checksums in the
> changes files autobuilders send the admin for signing. It would break
> the existin
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:36:31PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 at 12:41:58 +0100, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > It should be signed at build time, just after dh_shasums and then the
> > sig file packaged together with all the other files. I don't see a
>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 08:31:40AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Simon McVittie writes:
> >
> >> Most packages (in terms of proportion of the archive, in particular for
> >> architectures other than i386 and amd64) are built by a buildd, so each
> >> buildd woul
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:14:13AM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 12:39 +0100, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 08:31:40AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Russ Allbery writes:
> > > > Simon McVittie writes:
> >
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:38:24AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> You can always sign the deb. The tools to sign and verify are all
> present. Only ftp-master stands in the way of using that.
I would love signed debs. But this is orthogonal to signed checksum
files and should probably discu
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:52:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT writes:
>
> > I have no strong preferences between signed APT and SIGNED DEBs... it is
> > just that the remaining of the thread showed that signed DEBs are quite
> > tough to implement. (and I still wonder how we coul
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:56:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Harald Braumann writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:52:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> You add an additional ar member that contains the signed checksums of
> >> all of the files in data.tar.g
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 06:13:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yeah, that would be one such convention. I don't know if that's better or
> if adding a prefix of data: and control: to the path names would be
> better. My guess is that the latter may be a bit more flexible for
> possible long-ter
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:03:44PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Even if it creates a checksum file, someone could always hand-edit the
> package to add files not listed in the checksum files and we need to
> decide whether that's something that needs to be catched and if yes by
> whom and at wh
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:04:51PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The checksum file could be attached as additional member in the
> .deb. And a signature could be a signed file containing the checksum
> size and name of all members of a .deb preceeding the signature. That
> way the signature
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 08:08:13AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I'm discussing the case where the signature of the "checksums" file is valid
> but that checksums file does not list all the files present in
> data.tar.gz or control.tar.gz.
Require that checksums exist for all files and let dpkg
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:53:30PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 22:22 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > These are really odd complaints to bring against Debian given that these
> > are not Debian issues. Firefox, for example, works exactly the same way
> > everywhere
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 02:34:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Willi Mann writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> The purpose of UPG is not to use the user private group for any sort of
> >> access control. Rather, the point is to put each user in a group where
> >> they're the only member so th
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 03:11:56PM +, The Fungi wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 02:34:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That's a good idea. I'm not sure if all UNIX group systems allow
> > one to ask how many users are a member of a particular group, but
> > if there's a way to ask that ques
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Will be done in base-files 5.4.
I think that this change was done prematurely. There is still the
issue of a Debian system running in a non-UPG environment. And so far
I haven't seen a resolution for this point in the discussion.
C
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 01:04:22PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> >> Will be done in base-files 5.4.
> >
> > I think that this c
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:14:28AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 05/17/2010 10:02 AM, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > - you could have a UPG system but a mismatch of IDs -> wrong umask
>
> ID numbers, yes. ID names, no. If the user name maches the group name,
> IE: aaron =
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:04:58AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> If you're using a non-UPG system, then you don't care. Debian is
> UPG-based, so your argument is invalid.
So you propose that Debian should be restricted to work in pure UPG
environments. Then there is no need to detect the environ
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:08:17AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2010-05-18, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Not to speak about, that UPG is anyway a questionable abuse of the
> > user/group concept.
> >
> > Neither to speak about the fact, that in the 17 years debian exists
> > now,... no m
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 03:40:06PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:08:17AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >> On 2010-05-18, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> >> > Not to spe
If you want to answer, please do it on the list. I'm not interested in
a private discussion.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 04:23:24PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Harald Braumann [100518 16:16]:
> > There is already an upstream bug [0], but even if it get's
> > i
Hi,
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:39:52PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> (4) Users need to test grub2 now.
I've been using grub2 for quite some time now on several different
systems with mixed success.
On simple standard system -- one disk, one kernel in /boot, no fancy
stuff -- it works quite wel
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:09:35PM +0200, C. Gatzemeier wrote:
> The
> path into your home directory is not restricted, just as the path
> others can take to ring your bell at home is not restricted.
Depends on adduser settings. Both, world readable and private home
directories are common.
> Al
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:35:34AM +0200, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 23:43 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Roger Leigh said:
> > > How will adduser cope with group addition; does it skip UIDs until
> > > it finds an unused unique UID/GID pair?
>
>
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:30:25AM +0200, C. Gatzemeier wrote:
> I'm not sure yet, if I do properly understand the point when/why
> relaxing conditionally is a bad idea. To me, setting *fixed* umasks with
> group permissions equaling user permissions seems worse,
> especially because not all users
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:34:38PM +0200, C. Gatzemeier wrote:
>
> Thank you Harald for scrutinizing.
>
> Am Fri, 28 May 2010 14:50:27 +0200
> schrieb Harald Braumann:
>
> If that externel system means to have UPGs, but does not support
> propper ID allignment (like debi
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:49:25PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Harald Braumann]
> > Why would you create such a mixed system? I don't see a usecase for
> > that.
>
> You should not really allow your lack of imagination to limit what
> computer systems
93 matches
Mail list logo
