Hi,
Martin-Éric Racine [2007-02-20 0:46 +0200]:
> 0700 is not an acceptable permission; it breaks things on too many
> Debian derivatives. However, making ownership root:root again is
> acceptable to me.
>
> Kenshi? Martin? Would 4754 root:root pose any security problem that
> you can think of?
On 2/20/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> Wake up, Steve. I maintain this package. You don't. Making this
> package a one-size-fits all is my call, not yours. Your opinion of
> Ubuntu is irrelevant.
It's fine to try to make this package
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> Wake up, Steve. I maintain this package. You don't. Making this
> package a one-size-fits all is my call, not yours. Your opinion of
> Ubuntu is irrelevant.
It's fine to try to make this package one size fits all, but having
binaries which do not ne
On 2/20/07, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:38:59AM +0200, =?UTF-8?Q? Martin-=C3=89ric?= Racine
wrote:
> Have your pick among those combinations of modes and ownership. As an
> added challenge, the selected mode and ownership combination must work
> out of th
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:38:59AM +0200, =?UTF-8?Q? Martin-=C3=89ric?= Racine
wrote:
> Have your pick among those combinations of modes and ownership. As an
> added challenge, the selected mode and ownership combination must work
> out of the box on Ubuntu and other popular Debian derivatives too
On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> >> 4754 root:root does not work for me.
Anyway, 6754 root:root has a similar output with me:
Looking at Policy 10.9, we have a choice between modes 2755, 4755,
2754, 4754 or 0755. Ownership could be root:r
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> >> 4754 root:root does not work for me.
>> >
>> > Actually, 6754 is what we would need, but that probably is against
>> > Policy. Then again, since 0700 works, I really don't see why 4754
>> > doesn't, since they are both owned and executed by root.
>> >
>>
>> As I said
On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> > On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Package: cups-pdf
>> >> Version: 2.4.2-2
>> >> Severity: g
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> > On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Package: cups-pdf
>> >> Version: 2.4.2-2
>> >> Severity: grave
>> >> Justification: renders package unusable
>> >>
>>
On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Package: cups-pdf
>> Version: 2.4.2-2
>> Severity: grave
>> Justification: renders package unusable
>>
>> After updating to 2.4.2-2 it stopped producing
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Package: cups-pdf
>> Version: 2.4.2-2
>> Severity: grave
>> Justification: renders package unusable
>>
>> After updating to 2.4.2-2 it stopped producing outputs
>> (even to the root user).
>>
>> Running 'chmod 7
On 2/20/07, Filipe R. Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Package: cups-pdf
Version: 2.4.2-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
After updating to 2.4.2-2 it stopped producing outputs
(even to the root user).
Running 'chmod 700 /usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf' (and
'chown root
Package: cups-pdf
Version: 2.4.2-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
After updating to 2.4.2-2 it stopped producing outputs
(even to the root user).
Running 'chmod 700 /usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf' (and
'chown root\: /usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf' to make it
equal to oth
13 matches
Mail list logo
