]] Russ Allbery
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Projects which have multiple components, each of which has different
security/interface surfaces without stable defined interfaces, can lead
to problems when one set of developers doesn't understand the security
implications of the
]] Russ Allbery
My question here is: am I missing something in systemd? Did I just look
at the wrong files, or not look deeply enough, or is there orientation
documentation somewhere else where I didn't see it? Is there something
about this comparison that's unfair?
Did you see the
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
Did you see the «Documentation for Developers» section on
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ ? It's more of an
overview/design doc than function documentation, but it might be some of
what you're looking for.
I've also forwarded your
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 09:50:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
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 ?
Again, very good question. And
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
This documentation is really, really nice, but it's a bit different than
what I was talking about. I should be clear, though (and please also do
mention this to Lennart): the user-facing and the integration
documentation for systemd seems quite good. This
Eugene Zhukov writes (Bug#727708: systemd code documentation):
The frequency of comments sometimes reflects poor quality of code.
When you feel compelled to add a comment, consider rewriting the code
to make it clearer.
Please can we avoid arguing about this particular bikeshed here.
Thanks
Eugene Zhukov jevgeni...@gmail.com writes:
The frequency of comments sometimes reflects poor quality of code. When
you feel compelled to add a comment, consider rewriting the code to make
it clearer.
That would indeed be a succinct statement of the other perspective on code
comments, which
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
a friend of mine mentioned (not in a pub, but in a serious discussion
about systemd upstart) that he looked into upstart bugs more closely
Thanks to Jef for this work, the results and his comparison of some bugs
to systemd CVEs is quite interesting.
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 12:11:11PM -0600, 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
]] Don Armstrong
Right; I think we definitely should integrate many of the components
that are being developed. I'm just concerned that the
component-systemd interface is still changing, and because the
codebase is integrated, there's less of a requirement to communicate and
document what
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 07:42:39PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Message transféré
De: Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com
À: Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org
Sujet: Re: FYI: for the systemd security debate.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:39:59
11 matches
Mail list logo
