On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 15:30 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I there some docs (FAQ/ReleaseNotes?) that describe how to make changes
to policy in FC5?
Doing minor tweaks is described at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/LoadableModules/Audit2allow
As for wholesale policy changes, I don't
it seems ok now also in x86_64 with deskbar-applet-2.14.0-1.fc5
Thanks Gianluca
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:18:14AM -0800, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 03:09 -0500, Build System wrote:
Broken deps for i386
--
ekiga - 1.99.1-2.i386 requires libpt_linux_x86_r.so.1.9.3
ekiga -
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:04:09 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
[du...@nor75-15-82-67-190-22 include]$ rpm
-qf /usr/X11R6/include/Mrm/MrmAppl.h openmotif-devel-2.3.0-0.1.9.2
[du...@nor75-15-82-67-190-22 include]$ rpm -qf /usr/X11R6/include/Mrm/
file /usr/X11R6/include/Mrm
Paul Howarth wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 15:30 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I there some docs (FAQ/ReleaseNotes?) that describe how to make changes
to policy in FC5?
Doing minor tweaks is described at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/LoadableModules/Audit2allow
I've taken a look at
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
Paul Howarth wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 15:30 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I there some docs (FAQ/ReleaseNotes?) that describe how to make
changes to policy in FC5?
Doing minor tweaks is described at:
Not an answer to your question but there's an interesting discussion on
AppArmor and SELinux in Dan Walsh's blog:
http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/424.html
maybe it's time to accept that SELinux as technology is doomed. Not
because the code is bad, but because it's Just Too Complex(tm).
On 3/14/06, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn d.jacobfeuerb...@conversis.de wrote:
I've taken a look at AppArmor and it looks like a much more incremental
and easier to use solution than selinux. It's not as powerful but all this
power doesn't help much if most people will turn off selinux anyway because
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Not an answer to your question but there's an interesting discussion on
AppArmor and SELinux in Dan Walsh's blog:
http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/424.html
maybe it's time to accept that SELinux as technology is doomed. Not
because the code is bad, but because it's
I'm not sure I buy that SELinux is doomed.
While it may be complex we use it on all of our linux servers and
desktops. We've had a few problems but that caused us to read the docs
and learn how to write policy to deal with these things.
Just like any new technology there are going to be learning
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 3/14/06, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn d.jacobfeuerb...@conversis.de wrote:
I've taken a look at AppArmor and it looks like a much more incremental
and easier to use solution than selinux. It's not as powerful but all this
power doesn't help much if most people will turn off
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 16:55 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
Stephen Smalley wrote:
No, there is quite a bit of ongoing work on improving useability for
SELinux, including several new higher level tools that have been
recently released.
[snip]
Where can I get more information about
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 15:13:15 +0100,
Arjan van de Ven ar...@fenrus.demon.nl wrote:
maybe it's time to accept that SELinux as technology is doomed. Not
because the code is bad, but because it's Just Too Complex(tm).
Complexity kills, and I think the time it is taking to get to the point
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 18:48 +0100, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
may I use mock to test compilation of the 64bit variant of a rpm using
my regular 32bit centrino laptop?
Nope.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazq...@ivazquez.net
http://fedora.ivazquez.net/
gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 02:02 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 00:02, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 12:26 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Harald Hoyer (har...@redhat.com) said:
What do you think about the attached patch to
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 21:51 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) said:
What do you think about the attached patch to ifup-wireless? Works for
me :)
This should really be done in NM.
NM doesn't support system network configuration; only when a user
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: h2ph problem with gcc internal defines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178343
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: h2ph problem with gcc internal defines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185406
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed
18 matches
Mail list logo
