I am bothered by http://bugs.debian.org/56 >, and the fact
that apt(-get,itude) do not work with Squid as a proxy. I would very
much like to have apt work out of the box with Squid in Squeeze. To
fix it one can either change Squid to work with pipelining the way APT
uses, which the Squid main
On 17/05/10 00:06, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Felipe Sateler]
Here I get worse results for concurrency than non-concurrent:
CONCURRENCY=none: 51s
CONCURRENCY=makefile: 59s
CONCURRENCY=none + readahead: 37s
CONCURRENCY=makefile + readahead:
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 21:01 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> You might be interested in monkeysphere
> ...and in RFC 5081
> I haven't had a detailed look on monkeyspehre so
> far, but it seemed at a first glance, that it does not use
> standardised technology, does
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 21:01 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> You might be interested in monkeysphere
> ...and in RFC 5081
>
> I haven't had a detailed look on monkeyspehre so far, but it seemed at a
> first glance, that it does not use standardised technology, does it
[Felipe Sateler]
> Here I get worse results for concurrency than non-concurrent:
>
> CONCURRENCY=none: 51s
> CONCURRENCY=makefile: 59s
> CONCURRENCY=none + readahead: 37s
> CONCURRENCY=makefile + readahead: 43s
This is not the way it should be, and
Brian May writes:
> Besides, if the requirement is to be able to create files in certain
> directories with group permissions (I think that is what this is about,
> but only skimming), can't you do something with default ACLs that do the
> same thing on given directories without the extra complex
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
* Package name: tx
Version : 0.16
Upstream Author : Daisuke Okanohara
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/tx-trie/
* License : BSD license (Simplified BSD license)
Programming Lang: C++
Description : L
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
* Package name: flann
Version : 0.12
Upstream Author : Marius Muja
* URL : http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mariusm/index.php/FLANN/FLANN
* License : BSD license (Simplified BSD license)
Programming Lang: C++
Desc
On 17 May 2010 10:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In our case, because we've historically only ever used one GID in our
> enterprise LDAP (previously NIS) user database, so it's very difficult to
> safely introduce UPG since individual systems have used GIDs for various
> other reasons.
In our case we
Felipe Sateler schrieb:
> I mean, is there a reason for why I would want a non-UPG system?
What about a hosting environment where you need to have user files
world-readable (HTML documents or (PHP) scripts readable by www-data),
but don't want them readable by other customers? You could achieve
t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal)
* Package name: libjs-xmlextras
Version : not mentioned
Upstream Author : Erik Arvidsson
* URL : http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/xmlextras/xmlextras.html
* License : Apache Software License 2.0
P
Felipe Sateler writes:
> I mean, is there a reason for why I would want a non-UPG system? From
> what I've read in this thread, a common users group presents no
> advantage over UPG. Debian as an OS provider may be "forced" to support
> non-UPG configurations for reasons like you state, but I'm m
On 16/05/10 19:43, Russ Allbery wrote:
Felipe Sateler writes:
On 16/05/10 16:50, Harald Braumann wrote:
If non-UPG systems should be supported, keep the umask at 022 and let
the admin edit a single line to change it, if this is needed and he
knows it's a pure UPG system.
Is there a reason
On 05/16/2010 05:11 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> They have login shells in the sense that their shell field in /etc/passwd
> is /bin/sh, but if they do not really "login" to the system, then they
> do not read /etc/profile.
>
> In either case, if we plan to set default umask in /etc/login.defs or
>
Felipe Sateler writes:
> On 16/05/10 16:50, Harald Braumann wrote:
>> If non-UPG systems should be supported, keep the umask at 022 and let
>> the admin edit a single line to change it, if this is needed and he
>> knows it's a pure UPG system.
> Is there a reason to support non-UPG systems?
Yes
On Sun, 16 May 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Aaron Toponce writes:
>
> > Further discussion however shows that other than root, system users
> > don't have login shells, and as such, won't process the /etc/profile
> > file. Also, because root has its own UPG, there's really no need for the
> > log
On 05/16/2010 12:39 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Because the further discussion was wrong. System users have login shells
> in Debian. (I consider this a very long-standing bug.)
Then the logic should be in play. System users don't necessarily have a
private group, so their umask should be 0022. If
On 16/05/10 16:50, Harald Braumann wrote:
If non-UPG systems should be supported, keep the
umask at 022 and let the admin edit a single line to change it, if
this is needed and he knows it's a pure UPG system.
Is there a reason to support non-UPG systems?
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
--
To UNSU
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ryan Kavanagh
* Package name: lintex
Version : 1.04
Upstream Author : Maurizio Loreti
* URL : http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/MLO/index.html
* License : GPLv2
Programming Lang: C
Description : automatic cleanup of old T
On 09/05/10 11:54, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include
* Cesare Leonardi [Sun, May 09 2010, 12:26:36PM]:
Here what i've measured, from the Grub start to the Gdm prompt, in
either case starting from a completely power off machine:
Without concurrency: 33 sec.
With concurrency (try 1): 29 sec.
With conc
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 03:11:56PM +, The Fungi wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 02:34:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That's a good idea. I'm not sure if all UNIX group systems allow
> > one to ask how many users are a member of a particular group, but
> > if there's a way to ask that ques
The Fungi writes:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 02:34:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That's a good idea. I'm not sure if all UNIX group systems allow one to
>> ask how many users are a member of a particular group, but if there's a
>> way to ask that question at least in those group systems that
Aaron Toponce writes:
> Further discussion however shows that other than root, system users
> don't have login shells, and as such, won't process the /etc/profile
> file. Also, because root has its own UPG, there's really no need for the
> logic. My only question is then, why is their default she
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
gnome-display-properties
Hi
Then I try to change refresh rate of monitor mouse cursor turn invisible. All I
can do is to hit chancel and kill X server.
MSI Wind u100 intel card
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alex Holmes
* Package name: python-pycparser
Version : 1.05
Upstream Author : Eli Bendersky
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/pycparser/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Python
Description : A parser for the C language
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 02:34:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That's a good idea. I'm not sure if all UNIX group systems allow
> one to ask how many users are a member of a particular group, but
> if there's a way to ask that question at least in those group
> systems that support it, the impleme
On 05/15/2010 12:16 AM, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Somethink is wrong here. Should 314347 be reopened ?
Agreed. It's not working as it should. Running openssh-client version
1:5.5p1-3, and setting the write bit on my private group seems to keep
the client from behaving as expected.
--
. O . O .
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:57:56PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > Was this request ever actually made to the kfreebsd porters? I'm not sure
> > that it was, in which case it's rather unfair to say that they've had enough
> > time when they were never informed this was a pressing issue.
>
>
On 05/15/2010 02:51 PM, Willi Mann wrote:
> Is it possible to detect whether an account is configured properly based on
> the UPG idea? If yes, wouldn't it then make sense to only set umask 002 if a
> proper UPG account is detected, otherwise 022? This would avoid putting non-
> UPG systems on da
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 02:34:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Willi Mann writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> The purpose of UPG is not to use the user private group for any sort of
> >> access control. Rather, the point is to put each user in a group where
> >> they're the only member so th
OoO La nuit ayant déjà recouvert d'encre ce jour du samedi 15 mai 2010,
vers 23:34, Russ Allbery disait :
>> Is it possible to detect whether an account is configured properly based
>> on the UPG idea? If yes, wouldn't it then make sense to only set umask
>> 002 if a proper UPG account is detect
31 matches
Mail list logo
