this is that this the security requirements of the
machine are defined by what packages are, or rather are not, installed
assumption is exactly what makes this very feature such a security risk!
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com
for
the config files makes bad defaults a big issue.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
space and resources needed
for updates, not security and integrity.
And the very ironic thing about all this is that the very proposed
solution (don't install package XYZ if you don't want the reduced
security that comes with it) is exactly why this very feature is such a
bad idea!
Kevin
propose to go back to),
authentication was required EXACTLY ONCE for a user account. How is that a
big issue for this use case? Yet, it solves the problem of unauthorized
people installing stuff. So why was this changed?
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list
Fedora 9, 10 and 11 did things. It just worked. I have no
idea why this got changed.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
into this common confusion)) less
secure than a blanket authorization (don't ask for the root password at all,
have the authorization pre-remembered)?
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
by a download netbook edition link
which can then be not only 32-bit, but also using a desktop optimized for
netbook display and RAM sizes rather than the default GNOME.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Since when did security become optional in Linux?
That's not really the point. The real issue is that it defaults to being
insecure.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo
the semantics we want.
See:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/277#comment:4
and this is confirmed by yourself here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/polkit-devel/2009-September/000213.html
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https
.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
with CVS, but instead of
tagging a single revision ID, the build system would have to tag the
revision ID it checked out for each file. Having atomic commits just allows
dragging around just one revision ID instead of a set of IDs.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora
/packagekit/plain/policy/org.freedesktop.packagekit.policy.in
And still you failed to realize the obvious issues with this change?
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
me to leave a distro. Or stop using GNOME, if they are stupid enough
to try to kill it altogether.
You can switch to KDE, it supports focus follows mouse and exposes the
setting by default (under window properties in System Settings).
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
backend using OS X's
authenticationauthorization framework instead).
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
be a partial DoS and you
probably don't want to allow that on a machine with multiple concurrent
users, but it's not a free-to-all to lock the machine up.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
(you definitely need to audit
those!)
* D-Bus activation into the system bus: This one is new, you need to check
for /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services/*.service
PolicyKit on its own doesn't escalate privileges.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list
to administer their machines from them. ;-)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Benny Amorsen wrote:
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
If we don't want to live in the past, we should go away from 32-bit, not
from CDs. ;-) Doubling the download size for everyone is a bad solution.
An extra kernel shouldn't be that big a problem.
But it doesn't really solve
Benny Amorsen wrote:
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
(and not really implementable for the live images)
Why not? It should be reasonably easy to handle that in the boot loader.
1. Needs GRUB hackery to support transparently. (For the DVD, Anaconda can
detect the architecture
security exposure as we do with F12 (again, concentrating
on the single-user machine case).
I never tick those boxes. I'd like to know how to get rid of them
entirely.
Upgrade to F12 (with the latest PackageKit update), there's no such checkbox
in F12's PolicyKit.
Kevin Kofler
Mike McGrath wrote:
Epochs are nasty. Can anyone think of any other mechanism they could use
with rpm?
Ubuntu's really hack?
E.g. this version was used for Jaunty's K3b:
1.0.5+kde4svn935857+really1.0.5-3ubuntu5
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list
Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Thx, btw, I thought there was a plan to unite the dbus interfaces for
kwallet and g-keyring.
AFAIK, that hasn't been implemented yet. :-(
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
There's no reason in there that the older package must have the versioning
and the newer package is bare.
No, but the version almost everyone is going to use should be the default,
not the suffixed version. Usually, that's the newer version.
Kevin Kofler
schedule which had a reputation of being very stable, F9
was a lot more groundbreaking with brand new stuff like KDE 4, a new release
of X11, Upstart, a rewritten GDM etc. The cool new stuff also came with some
funkiness, which thankfully mostly got sorted out by updates.
Kevin Kofler
graphics in
F12 so far, at least compared to F11. Maybe you are just really unlucky?
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
effects before that (but after Compiz).
Compositing is sooner or later going to be enabled by default everywhere.
Right, it already is in upstream KDE, we're disabling it by default in
Fedora due to the sad driver situation. But with drivers getting more
reliable, we may change this.
Kevin
are obsolescent and hard to use. Kate FTW!
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Stefan, it's time for the next rebuild (with this bogus Requires
removed), I think.
The Requires is not bogus, it's just missing the % signs.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
. (Hint: it didn't quite work out…)
Following upstream like Fedora does clearly looks like the better strategy
to me.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
the
right thing, but that seems unclean.) Thank you,
Maybe use %posttrans?
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
then.) If the
package isn't shipping its own FindBoost.cmake or if removing it doesn't fix
the problem, please file a bug against CMake.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
and room for growth.
Hmmm, how does this affect F10's EOL? Josh Boyer previously announced that
the last day to file F10 updates in Bodhi will be December 14, that's now
right within the outage window.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https
make it any less.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
freetype-freeworld's subpixel filters at runtime (e.g. Qt 4
does that).
As for the BCI, it should need no special support from Cairo nor Pango.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
How about visually impaired people? Compiz and the zoom plugin *are*
essential to them.
They can use the plain old KMag which doesn't require any sort of
compositing at all.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
of being a maintainer.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
fine in tigcc.spec to prevent tigcc.a from being corrupted.)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
to %global?
They all should. All my specfiles are still stuck with %define, I guess I'll
never get used to the newly-recommended syntax. :-(
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
to ship Fedora 13 even if the KDE Live
image is broken?
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
where they aren't already there. The
timing for F12 was really poor, which was why it got unblocked there.)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
happened with F12 as released, so these
have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
These bugs filed by Rex Dieter about issues caused by HAL 0.5.14 are
probably more relevant:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545258
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545639
Kevin
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
personally have nothing
against if it would be fixed nevertheless.)
Kicking out multilibs from the repos might also make it much faster to
compose updates repositories. A lot of time is wasted computing multilibs
now.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Actually, x86_64 is an AMD invention (originally called AMD64)
and is called EM64T by Intel. The only Intel 64 I can think of
is IA64, i.e. Itanium (called Itanic by some).
EM64T was renamed to Intel 64 eons ago.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel
Neal Becker wrote:
I don't know what debuginfo package is needed. rpm -qa '*plasma*' doesn't
give a good answer.
Probably kdebase-workspace (and its dependencies, like kdelibs, but
debuginfo-install takes care of that automatically).
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
to
actively developing it), it can be introduced instead of or in addition to
the fork.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
a lame excuse.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
conflict, which is much
worse.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
it in the repository.)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
received back in 2006.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
of the directories covered by
primary.sqlite.bz2.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
to create branches with names which look like build tags,
which also get through validation.)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Michael Schwendt wrote:
The temporary work-around is to compile with
-fno-var-tracking-assignments
We also need that for some of our KDE packages. GCC really needs to get
fixed!
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com
a regression from our current CVS
setup, which does allow creating such branches)! Branching is really part of
what VCSs are for.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
to branch and rebuild a new one. I used the create a branch with a name
which looks like a build tag to the tag validator hack and branched
kde-plasma-networkmanagement-0_9-0_3_20090930svn_fc12_x, then built off that
branch.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Seriously, this comment about the patch in the specfile is a
packaging requirement, not a personal request.
It's not a requirement, it's only a SHOULD. If there are good reasons not to
do it, it's OK not to do it.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
It didn't help that the names changed for F12.
Yeah, I think that name change was a mistake, but sadly my proposal to
revert it was voted down in FESCo.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman
(non-scratch) builds to happen from a private-* branch.
And as I wrote before, I don't like this at all, it's a regression from our
current workflow and it defeats the point of the much-touted easy branching
with git.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list
Jarod Wilson wrote:
On 12/22/09 2:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
And as I wrote before, I don't like this at all, it's a regression from
our current workflow
Define our.
Our current workflow = what Fedora's current CVS setup allows.
In my personal opinion, Jesse is spot-on, we should
-
Free wherever software patents apply. So as far as I can tell, this is not
acceptable for Fedora, sorry. (But of course spot and/or RH Legal will have
the final word.)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo
???
Some of the generated C code is not that different from the above. IMHO
generated code does not belong into source tarballs at all.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
.
Actually, it installs the new package first, replacing any files from the
old one without reporting them as a conflict, then removes the files from
the old package which are not in the new one.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com
per distro version is not enough.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
audited is not the Fedora way, sorry.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
conforms to our packaging guidelines, I think this is
still against Fedora policies, in particular the Fedora Objectives. We want
to ship the current software, not old audited one. Fedora is not a certified
distribution, it's an up-to-date distribution.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list
about audits. Fedora is not a certified distribution.
Any alternative suggestions?
See above.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Michael Schwendt wrote:
What's wrong with ABRT?
My main beef with it is that it reports its crashes to the downstream bug
tracker when really the right people to fix them are the upstream
developers. KCrash/DrKonqi is much better there.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
audit and/or certification.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
pick these up if nobody else wants
them. I'm hereby forwarding this to the fedora-kde ML.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
not and should not require signing up to sort out any and all
issues with the package.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
refused to add it to @kde-desktop as it has nothing to do
with KDE).
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
401 - 473 of 473 matches
Mail list logo
