On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:57 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > > I'm curious how this works together with this plan > > > > http://www.flyn.org/easycrypto/easycrypto.html > > > > that W. Michael Petullo posted to the hal-list? > > That does not really fit into the Debian and Ubuntu architecture since > our hal does not run as root,
I wonder if you saw this http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2005-February/002163.html > and hal is meant to stay policy free. Uhm, no, what this is about is to make hal offer the 'do-this-thing-to- what-this-device-object-represents' in a convenient way. The policy is still in the caller invoking the method. Please don't confuse this with hal starting to enforce policy because this is just not the case. > OTOH we already have pmount which does the root part, so it is > straightforward to put the cryptsetup integration into pmount. In > addition, luks-setup does not yet exist in hal 0.5.1. No one sent the patches yet, no. > But all the other components are fine, so at most Debian/Ubuntu only > needs a small g-v-m patch to call pmount instead of luks-setup. I'd rather, in the grand scheme of things, have that distro X didn't have to do A while distro Y did B. I've also mentioned it would be nice to deprecate fstab-sync and use something like pmount instead but I've not seen any patches to do so. Instead I see Ubuntu going off in their own direction. Sigh. Have fun, David _______________________________________________ utopia-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/utopia-list
