-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Fedora 12 release contained changes in the default PackageKit
behavior that allow installation of packages by users in cases where:
* the user is logged in on the local console, and
* is installing packages signed with a previously trusted key,
I have a buildsystem that targets a number of different distribution
releases, and so I get to rebuild a root cache quite often. Quite
frequently, the creation of the root cache tarball fails and causes the
package build that triggered the root cache creation to fail. However,
simply repeating
for example,I have a target dist-test, it's detailed info as follow:
Name Buildroot Destination
--
dist-testdist-test-builddist-test
I use command koji
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM, King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote:
Except, that could be false advertising. In most cases, where CPU
computation is not used heavily, 64-bit is actually SLOWER than the 32-bit
counterpart. Optimizations are narrowing the gap, but it still remains
true.
On 11/19/2009 12:29 PM, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly:
On 11/19/2009 11:51 AM, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Error: Too many assumptions. Stack overflow.
Yes, you are making too many assumptions
Where?
Just stop.
Rahul
--
Actually it is a pity to usually see those convos drift off with
arguments like but my computer has Actually besides for netbooks
32bit is legacy. sure there is old hardware around and there is still
32bit fedora but with that analogy... none of them work on my c64
anyways.. and yea i know
Rahul Sundaram sundaram at fedoraproject.org writes:
If you have a problem with this, do explain why. Not suggesting it is
not a problem but being more descriptive does help.
This opens the door to all kinds of cascaded exploits that would otherwise not
be possible (see:
On 11/19/2009 02:30 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Rahul Sundaram sundaram at fedoraproject.org writes:
If you have a problem with this, do explain why. Not suggesting it is
not a problem but being more descriptive does help.
This opens the door to all kinds of cascaded exploits that would
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
.. err Jeff Garzik already made that point in this thread.
Yeah, so what? Am I not allowed to agree? Or not allowed to point to
another site?
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:18:28PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/18/2009 11:19 PM, nodata wrote:
Thanks. I have changed the title to:
All users get to install software on a machine they do not have the
root password to
.. if the packages are signed and from a signed repository.
Dne 19.11.2009 01:08, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
On 11/19/2009 05:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Wow, so we're going to seriously piss off some significant fraction
of the userbase in order to save 59k. Personally, I don't care about
most of the random UI changes that get thrown in during every Fedora
On 2009-11-19 10:23:53 AM, Till Maas wrote:
So at least one major security protection measure is not in place and
attackers can create their own repositories with signed packages that
have well known security flaws, e.g. a package with a bad setuid root
binary, and install it, if it is not
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Regardless of your take on that, it is now a very very popular segment
and many users are going to run Fedora on those systems (ie) 32-bit is
getting a whole new life all over again. We cannot call them legacy or
side line them.
The netbook problem can be addressed by a
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
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33:26PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
libguestfs-1.0.78-2.fc13 (build/make) rjones,virtmaint
This package failed on x86-64 simply because the build timed out.
This does take a long time to build -- 2 hours in Koji -- because it
performs a large number of automated tests
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33:26PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
mingw32-cairo-1.8.8-1.fc12 (build/make)
rjones,berrange,epienbro,lfarkas,mingwmaint
mingw32-gtk2-2.18.2-1.fc13 (build/make) rjones,berrange,epienbro,sailer
mingw32-qt-4.5.2-2.fc12 (build/make) sailer,rjones
mingw32-qwt-5.1.1-9.fc12
On 11/19/2009 02:49 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
.. err Jeff Garzik already made that point in this thread.
Yeah, so what? Am I not allowed to agree? Or not allowed to point to
another site?
IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already
On 11/19/2009 02:59 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Dne 19.11.2009 01:08, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
On 11/19/2009 05:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Wow, so we're going to seriously piss off some significant fraction
of the userbase in order to save 59k. Personally, I don't care about
most of the random
On 11/19/2009 03:06 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Regardless of your take on that, it is now a very very popular segment
and many users are going to run Fedora on those systems (ie) 32-bit is
getting a whole new life all over again. We cannot call them legacy or
side line
David Zeuthen wrote:
Jeez, Rahul. This has nothing to do with polkit per se, only PackageKit
and how it decides to use polkit.
Yet the root of the problem seems to be that in PolicyKit 1, you dropped
support for the auth_admin_keep_always feature which was used so far and
which had exactly the
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Even Microsoft Windows asks for elevated privileges for this sort of
thing!
What I'd like to have is a comprehensive set of options that need to be
locked down in PolicyKit to get a secure system. It looks like there are
tons of potentially nasty options enabled by
Hi.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:23:31 -0600, King InuYasha wrote:
1: Date/Time stamp, Unix time doesn't work in 32-bit past 2038 (not
really affecting us much, most of us will replace our PCs long before
then)
As much as I am in favour of 64 bit, but that is a red herring. 32bit
systems are
On 11/19/2009 03:38 PM, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Even Microsoft Windows asks for elevated privileges for this sort of
thing!
What I'd like to have is a comprehensive set of options that need to be
locked down in PolicyKit to get a secure system. It looks like there are
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 17:58 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Any package (whether new or an update) that adds/changes PolicyKit,
consolehelper, or PAM configuration, and anything that installs new
setuid/setgid executables, should require some additional third-party
review. Any significant changes
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f12/en-US/html/sect-
Release_Notes-Security.html
Man page:
pklocalauthority(8) polkit(8) polkitd(8) pkaction(1), pkcheck(1),
pkexec(1)
Which of these documents actually explains what these options do properly? I
couldn't
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already long thread to keep
repeating the same points.
Please stop patronising. It's annoying.
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 11/19/2009 03:48 PM, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
Which of these documents actually explains what these options do properly? I
couldn't see anything.
They just print out vague descriptions and are not comprehensive. Most of
the documentation just tells me how the configuration files are
On 11/19/2009 03:51 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already long thread to keep
repeating the same points.
Please stop patronising. It's annoying.
Repeating the same thing over and over again is
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:36:27AM -0500, Ricky Zhou wrote:
On 2009-11-19 10:23:53 AM, Till Maas wrote:
So at least one major security protection measure is not in place and
attackers can create their own repositories with signed packages that
have well known security flaws, e.g. a package
On 11/18/2009 01:49 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:36:02 -0600,
Bruno Wolff IIIbr...@wolff.to wrote:
We currently have a 3d chess game packaged as chess. I want to ask for
fedora hosted space for it sop that we can be upstream for some modernization
(with regard to
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:49 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Repeating the same thing over and over again is annoying as well. It's
just noise instead of useful input.
Look, a person expressed an opinion about this screw up on LWN that I
find very reasonable. So, I sent my agreement with it to the
On 11/19/2009 02:32 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Stransky wrote:
Mozilla decided to merge all include directories to one (mozbz#398573)
and stop shipping stable/unstable packages.
Does this mean the API will finally be kept stable? Or is it now even harder
to figure out what needs
On 11/19/2009 04:22 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On the other hand, you don't seem to want people talking in bug reports
and you don't want them talking on mailing lists.
Not true. I just want to avoid repetition and if the points you wanted
to make have already been made clearly here and
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:49:29PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/19/2009 03:51 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already long thread to keep
repeating the same points.
Please stop patronising. It's
On 11/19/2009 04:45 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
So obviously we need some middle ground. I guess if the spins
personalise the package set then they should also personalize the
security defaults. e.g. a server spin would not include PackageKit at
all, and default to not letting users change the
Kevin Kofler wrote:
The absence of a GUI policy editor combined with lack of documentation for
the config files makes bad defaults a big issue.
This is a key issue. Do I take it that I have to edit the XML files
directly to require authentication for package installs?
So far I have:
$
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 04:45:05 pm James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 16:04 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
The problem is the *Default* not the fact that you can consciously
allow users to update without a password.
And I wonder what the audit trail will show? Does it show
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:46:50PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538615
bug is already opened.
Thanks -- for some reason I couldn't find it in my early-morning searches.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior Systems Architect
Cyberinfrastructure
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 11:45 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
Surely if you're deploying a workstation (1000s of workstations?) you
would just ship an extra package that set the PolicyKit policies
according to the domain policy, so if I was a school, I would allow
the active users to unplug
2009/11/19 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com
So if I pick personal desktop, the change you made makes sense. If on
the other hand, I choose workstation profile, I would obviously need a
more locked down profile.
Surely if you're deploying a workstation (1000s of workstations?) you
would
2009/11/19 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:32 -0500, Alex Lancaster wrote:
Which component would be best to open a trac ticket for this
functionality against?
It basically needs to be fixed in Makefile.common, but my plan to fix it
involves getting rid of CVS all
Dne 19.11.2009 12:15, Richard Hughes napsal(a):
The problem is who to target. If you call Fedora a desktop distro,
then it makes perfect sense for local users to be able to shutdown the
computer, suspend, change the system clock and install clipart without
passwords, as long as it's done in a
2009/11/19 Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com:
policykit-profile-server
policykit-profile-controlled-deployment
policykit-profile-personal-desktop
Sure, that's not an insane idea at all. I would imagine most network
admins worth their salt would be shipping custom PolicyKit overrides
in F12
2009/11/19 Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com:
1) We should recognize this new policy departs from decades of Unix and
Linux sysadmin experience.
Sure, it's different. It doesn't make it wrong.
2) F12 policy should be reverted to F11, ASAP. Possibly with a CVE.
PolicyKit in F12 doesn't have the
Anyone else seeing gdb segfault in F12?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538626
-Chris
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Thursday 19 November 2009 14:05:01 Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/11/19 Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com:
1) We should recognize this new policy departs from decades of Unix and
Linux sysadmin experience.
Sure, it's different. It doesn't make it wrong.
2) F12 policy should be reverted to
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I happened to install func the other day on several Fedora and
CentOS boxes and was surprised that both services defaulted to on.
Please file a bug here.
I do intend to, just hadn't gotten to it yet. :)
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:32:50PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/11/19 Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com:
policykit-profile-server
policykit-profile-controlled-deployment
policykit-profile-personal-desktop
Sure, that's not an insane idea at all. I would imagine most network
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 11:15 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/11/18 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
I would like to see this discussion separate from discussion about the
current issue with PackageKit.
That would be nice :)
The problem is who to target. If you call Fedora a desktop
Nikola Pajkovsky wrote, at 11/19/2009 10:34 PM +9:00:
Author: npajkovs
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gpm/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv16231
Modified Files:
gpm.spec
Log Message:
local build need this but koji not. wierd
Index: gpm.spec
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com said:
Sure, that's not an insane idea at all. I would imagine most network
admins worth their salt would be shipping custom PolicyKit overrides
in F12 anyway.
If that is the Fedora expectation,
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
Once upon a time, Ricky Zhou ri...@fedoraproject.org said:
I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't the attacker need to trick
yum/packagekit into using the malicious repo first? I didn't think that
was allowed for non-root users.
1.5 words:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:14 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
This idea comes up a lot - that we can make Fedora packages be
uncontroversial raw material, and then make the hard decisions at the
spin level. (I'm speaking more generally than this particular issue.)
It doesn't work practically:
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Otherwise, why do we even
bother with passwords (and checking password strength)?
Authentication and authorisation are not the same problem at all. It's
probably worth reading the PolicyKit design documents.
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com said:
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
Once upon a time, Ricky Zhou ri...@fedoraproject.org said:
I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't the attacker need to trick
yum/packagekit into using the malicious repo first? I didn't
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 13:36 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/11/19 Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com:
By having that two part policy, and having the straightforward user
configuration GUI that we've been wanting for years, I think we cover
almost everything. And we don't have to ask the user
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com said:
If you're not shipping custom PolicyKit rules then at the moment
normal users can, without authentication:
* Grant high priority scheduling to a user process
I have complained about this.
* Connection sharing via a protected WiFi
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com said:
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Otherwise, why do we even
bother with passwords (and checking password strength)?
Authentication and authorisation are not the same problem at
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
So there are no packages in releases/12/Everything that have privilege
escalation bugs? All I have to do is wait for one to be found, and I
have a signed path to root. Even if the package is fixed in updates, I
just have to have a custom updates
Hi.
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:39:13 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
No, that won't work either. In PackageKit parlance installing a
package is installing a package that does not already exist on the
computer. You can't downgrade (or upgrade) packages using the
PackageKit InstallPackages() method.
Once upon a time, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com said:
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
So there are no packages in releases/12/Everything that have privilege
escalation bugs? All I have to do is wait for one to be found, and I
have a signed path to root. Even if the package
On 11/18/2009 08:47 PM, King InuYasha wrote:
In any case, 32-bit shouldn't be considered legacy until every type of
computer sold is 64-bit. And the fact is, that isn't true. Netbooks are
entirely 32-bit currently, and a majority of low end desktops are still
32-bit only.
This simply isn't
On 11/18/2009 05:21 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
You've sortof missed my point here, which isn't a big surprise since I
left a lot of space to figure it out in.
root added your name to /etc/sudoers. She might have put:
cjd ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL
but apparently instead she put:
cjd
Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org writes:
I said, it *will* be an upstream change.
Upstream change or not, you're pissing off users to save 59k out of
however many gigabytes a minimal GNOME install is. I shouldn't really
presume to speak for others, but for me focus-follows-mouse is
On 11/19/2009 08:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Rahul Sundaram writes:
I said, it *will* be an upstream change.
Upstream change or not, you're pissing off users to save 59k out of
however many gigabytes a minimal GNOME install is.
To be clear, I am not responsible for this change. You are talking
On 11/18/2009 08:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com said:
I think that's too subjective though.
What is subjective about allowing unprivileged to do things that
previously only root could do?
I'd be more in favor of a simple,
broad view of what
On Thursday 19 November 2009 06:45:51 am Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/11/19 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org:
Right. The alternative really is defining the roles and the target
audience clearly for distinct set of policies and allowing the user to
trivially select it during or
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:03:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org writes:
On 11/19/2009 05:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
So I just spent a frustrating little while looking for the
focus-follows-mouse setting on a fairly-vanilla F12 installation.
As far as I can
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 09:45:28AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33:26PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
libguestfs-1.0.78-2.fc13 (build/make) rjones,virtmaint
This package failed on x86-64 simply because the build timed out.
This does take a long time to build -- 2
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 03:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
FWIW, upstream KDE requires root authentication to set the current
time, and
in fact one usage (the one usage? I haven't found others so far) of
KAuth in
KDE 4.4 will be to use PolicyKit to prompt for the root password (KDE
4.3
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:20 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 11/18/2009 07:45 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
Stick with the facts, be clear about what you're
trying to accomplish (changing it back in F13? Changing it back in F12?
Setting a policy so
On 11/19/2009 04:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Rahul Sundaramsunda...@fedoraproject.org writes:
I said, it *will* be an upstream change.
Upstream change or not, you're pissing off users to save 59k out of
however many gigabytes a minimal GNOME install is. I shouldn't really
presume to speak for
Thanks for doing this, Matt. These reports are very helpful.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com wrote:
jsr-305-0-0.4.20090203svn.fc12 (build/make) jjames
This one is due to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530639.
I can modify my package to pull in
2009/11/19 Benjamin Kreuter ben.kreu...@gmail.com:
I would not say it is unreasonable to miss this detail,
since Fedora is periodically used as a base for RHEL, which is certainly not a
single user desktop system.
Sure, and RHEL default policy will most likely be different to the Desktop spin.
If control-center-extra goes away, then install gconf-editor, then under
apps-metacity-general, set focus_mode to sloppy. (Thanks to Adam
Williamson for pointing this out.)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 11:15 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/11/18 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
I would like to see this discussion separate from discussion about the
current issue with PackageKit.
That would be nice :)
The problem is who to target. If you call Fedora a desktop
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:02 +, Mat Booth wrote:
Exciting times. In your plan, what will be replacing CVS?
If I had my way and did it today, git. Each package would be its own
module, and each fedora release would be represented by a real branch in
the git module. We'd have a userland tool,
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 06:50 +, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
The desktop users on my network might have difficulty doing any of those
things, since their desktop access is via VNC tunnelled through ssh.
However, now it seems they can arbitrarily install software into /usr,
on a
Once upon a time, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com said:
That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
local console login, which I doubt. In your case, none of your users
would be allowed to install software/updates.
VNC looks like a local console login.
--
Chris
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Upstream change or not, you're pissing off users to save 59k out of
however many gigabytes a minimal GNOME install is. I shouldn't really
presume to speak for others, but for me focus-follows-mouse is wired
into the fingertips --- it's not a
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:05 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
Mike's suggestion of a distro-wide policy is one way to do that, and on it's
face, it's certainly a lot more practical than a distro wide change control
board auditing for security relevant changes, or even sillier, expecting
package
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 13:05 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Where do you see Fedora 12 Server Edition? Nowhere, because we don't
have it. I was shouting whole morning on IRC to Server Spin folks about
it, but I think we are really missing Server Spin. Something which
wouldn't be useful as enterprise
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Upstream change or not, you're pissing off users to save 59k out of
however many gigabytes a minimal GNOME install is. I shouldn't really
presume to speak for others, but for me focus-follows-mouse is
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:14 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
It doesn't work practically: configuration for packages needs to live
with the package. Putting gigantic amounts of configuration into the
%post of a kickstart file quickly becomes unmanageable. And the idea
that we make configuration
Andre Robatino (an...@bwh.harvard.edu) said:
If control-center-extra goes away, then install gconf-editor, then under
apps-metacity-general, set focus_mode to sloppy. (Thanks to Adam
Williamson for pointing this out.)
You can do this with gconftool-2, without the need for gconf-editor.
Bill
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 09:33:29AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 09:45:28AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33:26PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
libguestfs-1.0.78-2.fc13 (build/make) rjones,virtmaint
This package failed on x86-64 simply
Hi
Would you please explain how do you come up with the
Source0:%{name}-%{version}%{?pretag}.source.tar.bz2
taraballs?
Even better, include it in a comment in the spec file or the fedora wiki
somewhere.
I am trying to track a regression but having a hard time connecting
these source
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:38 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) said:
This is true in fact I very much prefer to have an admin group and an
unprivileged users group.
I suggest you look at polkit-desktop-policy, and desktop_admin_r and
desktop_user_r.
Yeah that
greetings,
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 01:03:44PM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I originally reported this through bugzilla, but at Rahul's suggestion,
I am posting this to the fedora-devel.
what is the bugzilla id? I would like to track this.
regards,
J
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On 11/19/2009 01:08 PM, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
greetings,
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 01:03:44PM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I originally reported this through bugzilla, but at Rahul's suggestion,
I am posting this to the fedora-devel.
what is the bugzilla id? I would like to track this.
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 13:03 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I originally reported this through bugzilla, but at Rahul's suggestion,
I am posting this to the fedora-devel.
Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions
of Fedora 11 packages, preventing a complete
Verily I say unto thee, that Jesse Keating spake thusly:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:32 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com said:
That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
local console login, which I doubt. In your case, none
The netbook problem can be addressed 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.
There is a Fedora 12 LXDE Spin that I think would fit the gap. But it
need some love. :
Am 2009-11-19 00:58, schrieb Chris Adams:
After seeing two conflicts over PolicyKit default policies allowing
unprivileged to do things that previously only root could do, it seems
to me that there needs to be some kind of oversight on security policy
for the distribution. Right now, any
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:46:27PM +0100, Christoph Höger wrote:
Hi,
after my upgrade to f12 I could play any sound files. This was a odd
problem: Not just my speakers stay silent, but the player won't even
start.
xmms complained:
** WARNING **: alsa_get_mixer(): Attaching to mixer
On 09-11-19 05:06:16, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 01:48 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
On 09-11-18 20:09:18, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 13:50 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
..
Fedora has always been this way. Have you tried to use sound
or video in the
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 13:38 -0500, Stu Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 13:19, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 13:03 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
[...]
For example, 'yum update iw' does nothing; 'yum install iw' results in
an error message
2009/11/19 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net:
Once upon a time, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com said:
That is incorrect, unless somehow your ssh tunneled VNC registers as
local console login, which I doubt. In your case, none of your users
would be allowed to install software/updates.
VNC
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:04:44 -0500,
Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/17/2009 04:12 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I just went to rawhide over the last day and am not able to boot into
kernel 2.6.32-0.48.rc7.git1.fc13 unless selinux is disabled. (permissive
isn't good enough).
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com wrote:
btw... you dont need to buy a netbook to get the performance benefits
of an ssd. *writing that on f12 64bit on a lenovo x301 with ssd*, and
no... ssds are not a step back but a leap ahead in many regards: power
consumption,
1 - 100 of 293 matches
Mail list logo
