On 13.12.2022 0.26, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote:
>> It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing
>> lists. I tend to keep an eye on PAM
>> bugs because I maintained pambase.
>>
>> Bugs are the primary method of discussing changes to
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:26:32PM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote:
> > It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing
> > lists. I tend to keep an eye on PAM
> > bugs because I maintained pambase.
> >
> > Bugs are the primary method of
> On 12 Dec 2022, at 22:26, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote:
>> It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing lists.
>> I tend to keep an eye on PAM
>> bugs because I maintained pambase.
>> Bugs are the primary method of discussing
On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote:
It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing lists. I
tend to keep an eye on PAM
bugs because I maintained pambase.
Bugs are the primary method of discussing changes to packages.
You really came strong on this one. I did explain
> On 12 Dec 2022, at 21:55, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/12/2022 06.52, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> Please do file a bug tracking this proposal, and reference the
>> discussion thread.
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>>> What I'd like to do is to
Hi,
On 12/12/2022 06.52, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Please do file a bug tracking this proposal, and reference the
discussion thread.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
What I'd like to do is to bump the limits.conf we ship with pam to
following
* hard nproc
Please do file a bug tracking this proposal, and reference the
discussion thread.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> What I'd like to do is to bump the limits.conf we ship with pam to
> following
>
> * hard nproc 16384
> * soft nproc 16384
> * hard
Hi,
On 11/12/2022 13.46, Sam James wrote:
You should still file a bug for two reasons:
1. Paper trail
2. sys-auth/pambase has another maintainer who*is* active :)
As for the question in your post, I'll have a think. Thanks!
I am not against creating a bug, I do see it however as inefficient
> On 11 Dec 2022, at 08:28, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to touch base on the topic of pam_limits and the defaults that we
> ended up with in Gentoo.
>
> [...]
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Unless there's strong opposition to not bump those 1024/4096 current
> defaults, I'd like
Hi,
I'd like to touch base on the topic of pam_limits and the defaults that
we ended up with in Gentoo.
Currently on default system installation without any modification to
/etc/security/limits.{conf,d/*} user will end up with limit o 1024 of
file descriptors and 4096 limit of threads.
10 matches
Mail list logo
