On 12/02/2013 09:40 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> As discussed in the most recent CTTE meeting, we expect all of the
> position statements to be finalized no later than this week. I believe
> that only the OpenRC statement is not yet finalized.
Hi Don,
That's not correct, I have stated it was done (
I'd like to get this particular bug discussion restarted.
From my understanding, a static, non generator version of
lvm2_activation_generator_systemd_red_hat.c will allow for the
activation of lvm2 after the addition of an lvm device by udev/systemd.
Michael: Is this correct?
Bastian: Would such
Your message dated Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:43:59 -0800
with message-id <20131202014359.gd6...@teltox.donarmstrong.com>
and subject line Keith closes this bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #685795,
regarding Possibly inviting a new TC member
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pr
As discussed in the most recent CTTE meeting, we expect all of the
position statements to be finalized no later than this week. I believe
that only the OpenRC statement is not yet finalized.
CTTE members will be asking questions which are unclear from the
position statements in the next two weeks
On Sunday 01 December 2013 21:50:49 Ian Jackson wrote:
> This leads me to a question which I find myself asking, after reading
> the systemd debate page:
>
> If we were to adopt systemd as pid 1, which sections of the systemd
> source code would we probably want to adopt as well ? Or to put it
>
Ian Jackson writes:
> If we were to adopt systemd as pid 1, which sections of the systemd
> source code would we probably want to adopt as well ? Or to put it
> another way, which other existing programs would be obsoleted ?
Yes, that's a good question. We're already using udev, which is now p
In the systemd statement we see:
Systemd's upstream is very accommodating to distributors. They are
taking a lot of Debian's needs into account, even though it has not
yet been decided to make it the default.
The upstart statement says:
systemd upstream paints a utopian vision where upst
Sune Vuorela writes ("Bug#727708: systemd (security) bugs (was: init system
question)"):
> Note that the non-pid1-parts of systemd, like logind for example, are pieces
> we need no matter what init system we choose. The question is more if we can
> use them as provided by upstream or we need to
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 04:07:17PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> The issue people are talking about were discovered during a review of
>> the Red Hat Product Security Team (most likely triggered by the
>> inclusion of systemd into RHEL7). So in fact having more comp
Hi,
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > More review and more usage will lead to more bugs being found, we should
> > rather applaud Red Hat for investing resources and be diligent. After all
> > Red Hat is the only distro staffing a proactive product security team
> > (from which everyo
On Thursday 28 November 2013 13:43:27 Ian Jackson wrote:
> > CVE summary Debian BTS Redhat
> > 2012-0871 systemd-logind insecure file creation ? 795853
> Furthermore, I think it is fair to look at bugs in non-pid-1 parts of
> the syste
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 04:07:17PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 08:07:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > All distributions "care" about not having security issues in their code, but
> > that's not the same thing as actually doing the work to audit the code. In
> > p
12 matches
Mail list logo
