On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 William Hubbs wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
> > Obviously it's good to have the functionality should you need it, but
> > again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow
> > for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
> >
> > While many p
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > but
> > again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow
> > for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
>
> It's a welcome option but an important question seems to be; Why wasn't
> this picked up in the dev cycle?.
>
That would req
Steven J. Long wrote:
> What I'm not in favour of is making the simple cases more
> difficult, to deal with the complex ones. It's completely
> brain-dead thinking.
This is exactly what some people think or say when they learn that I
use Gentoo.
I appreciate Gentoo because I am able and willing t
> William is packaging upstream udev for Gentoo.
>
> You are shooting the messenger.
I expect there is 0 blame meant for William.
P.s.
Is it William that Lennart dished some blame in the direction of. I
completely disagree. It's not the job of every distro to look for all
build flags to fix
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:04:01AM +, Steven J. Long wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 William Hubbs wrote:
> > Steven J. Long wrote:
> > > If you're certain that every user with a current simple setup, who
> > > uses the kernel default names, and has such a firewall setup isn't
> > > going to sudd
William Hubbs wrote:
> I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering
> to discuss whether we want the new names for new installs.
IMO yes we do.
What's that bug - or what is the good way to thumbs up/down?
//Peter
pgpswXbIiseJI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:25:01AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering
> > to discuss whether we want the new names for new installs.
>
> IMO yes we do.
>
> What's that bug - or what is the good way to thumbs up/down?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/01/13 09:48 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:25:01AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>> I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering
>>> to discuss whether we want the new names for new
On 14/01/13 20:35, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Debian having to patch KDE to use /etc for configs is simply wrong too.
huh huh, do you know if they have a fix for
http://bugs.gentoo.org/438790 to stop KDE from destroying upstream
polkit files?
> > Debian having to patch KDE to use /etc for configs is simply wrong too.
>
> huh huh, do you know if they have a fix for
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/438790 to stop KDE from destroying upstream
> polkit files?
I don't, I just know that on Debian the configs are in /etc and the bug
you mention,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>
> I still ascert that apps adding groups with NOPASSWD sudoers lines
> perhaps even commented out by default in all or some cases is far
> better than polkit for many reasons. Any counter argument can apply
> to sudo too and rather easily.
>
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>>
>> I still ascert that apps adding groups with NOPASSWD sudoers lines
>> perhaps even commented out by default in all or some cases is far
>> better than polkit for many reasons. Any c
> > Unless sudo has some config setting that allows access only when
> > logged in via console it isn't really a solution.
> >
> > Rich
> >
man sudoers -> /requiretty
>
> I manage 'thousands' of desktops at Google and we generally like
> polkit.
I never meant it is rubbish as such but I saw i
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> You could try to argue that many eyes will look at a central piece of
> code but in fact less implementations will likely mean less eyes and
> just assumption that a guy who got JS through as a config language has
> everything covered.
Stil
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:19:37 +0200
Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> This is a major problem, there are other questionable choices that
> raise the question whether developers are familiar with how things are
> done on Unix:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
>
I have to confess that de
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> > Unless sudo has some config setting that allows access only when
>> > logged in via console it isn't really a solution.
>> >
>> > Rich
>> >
>
> man sudoers -> /requiretty
>
>>
>> I manage 'thousands' of desktops at Google and we generall
> >
> > I never meant it is rubbish as such but I saw it as rediculously
> > inferior to sudo before I even read this.
> >
> > http://drfav.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-quest-towards-trusted-client-applications-a-rambling/
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but that is talking about a specific set
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> >
>> > I never meant it is rubbish as such but I saw it as rediculously
>> > inferior to sudo before I even read this.
>> >
>> > http://drfav.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-quest-towards-trusted-client-applications-a-rambling/
>>
>> Perhaps
> >
> > How about uncommenting a line that does so. All you are buying into is
> > a default setup.
>
> App authors don't ship configs like that though. Does apt ship a sudo
> config? Does anything?
Perhaps you missed my opening message on this topic, except it was in
your first reply.
19 matches
Mail list logo
