Bug#510657: [Debian-olpc-devel] Bug#510657: Bug#510657: sugar: /etc/dbus-1/system.d file needs alterations for fd.o #18961
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:49:18PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 at 21:01:12 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Does that mean that I should not simply upload a fixed release to unstable, but wait and depend on that newer release of dbus? Or (looking at the changelog entry now) does it perhaps mean that my change will work both now and (hopefully) with your new release of dbus, but that my old sugar version will _not_ work with newer dbus? I've tested lenny's sugar package with the D-Bus that's targeting lenny, and it does work, so this bug obviously isn't particularly critical (in particular, this bug doesn't block #503532 and is hence not RC for lenny). I believe that all four combinations of (buggy, fixed) sugar and (old, new) D-Bus should work in practice, so you shouldn't need to introduce any versioned dependencies. Excellent. Thanks for clarifying. - jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklh+NAACgkQn7DbMsAkQLiIgwCeLUi9YaXzJJ0uesdtUPWqKT1c zSUAoJF8vOgtClMFtU2dTiNQ0LbagQqI =3Cpb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510657: [Debian-olpc-devel] Bug#510657: Bug#510657: sugar: /etc/dbus-1/system.d file needs alterations for fd.o #18961
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:57:48PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 at 04:12:08 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Ok, I read the fd.org bugreport. But I fail to understand what is wrong and should be fixed with /etc/dbus-1/system.d/NetworkManagerInfo.conf - it seems to me that all entries contain both send_interface and send_destination as described in that bugreport. allow send_foo=a/ allow send_bar=b/ allows anything where foo=a *or* bar=b. allow send_foo=a send_bar=b/ allows anything where foo=a *and* bar=b. I recognize none of above patterns in the sugar package. What you want is either: allow send_interface=org.freedesktop.NetworkManagerInfo send_destination=org.freedesktop.NetworkManagerInfo/ Isn't this exactly what is done at the moment? or simply: allow send_destination=org.freedesktop.NetworkManagerInfo/ In practice the latter is likely to be more appropriate - if you add more interfaces to the NMI service later, you'll probably want them to have the same access control as the base NMI interface. Sorry for being so thick-headed, but I still fail to understand what in particular is wrong with the configuration file provided by the sugar package. Could you please provide a patch? I do not mean that I want you to take responsibility for the complete changes to the package, just to point out more specifically what kind of change you imagine might work: Alternatively you could provide an alternative configuration file for me to look at (and pass upstream to the Sugar developers). Kind regards, - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklg3mQACgkQn7DbMsAkQLh5JwCfWd1N7natvEmCkEKLwdvdYU4W 1JcAnR2rb/udKh8Qlh71wgoSpEyNV0Fw =ocYc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
