Hi friends, I'am trying to develop a management tool for admins, and one of the
thing I need to do is detect when a gnome user start a gnome session, I use the
users command line, but it give all the users that are log in , but I only want
those one that have a gnome session up or X session up.
do
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> Locking stuff down means reducing the attack surface (eg getting rid of
> shell accounts) and who can write stuff to trusted repositories. It
> doesn't mean contorting the release process. You just need to have the
> signing policy right. Giv
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 07:47:26PM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>> I think it's nice that currently we can upload win32 and osx builds of
>> gnome
>> modules/apps and have them available on gnome servers, if we take away
>> shell acces
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:23:25PM +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> It's useful.
>
> What do you suggest then?
>
> 1. Let anyone with git.gnome.org upload any tarball they want
This one ^^
> 2. Let selected people upload any tarball they
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 10:44 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > What do you suggest then?
> >
> > 1. Let anyone with git.gnome.org upload any tarball they want
> > 2. Let selected people upload any tarball they want; handled by
> > accou...@gnome.org.
> > 3. Only maintainers, release team
>
> I thin
> What do you suggest then?
>
> 1. Let anyone with git.gnome.org upload any tarball they want
> 2. Let selected people upload any tarball they want; handled by
> accou...@gnome.org.
> 3. Only maintainers, release team
I think maintainers+release team is fine.
If there is a module that you frequent
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:23:25PM +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> It's useful.
What do you suggest then?
1. Let anyone with git.gnome.org upload any tarball they want
2. Let selected people upload any tarball they want; handled by
accou...@gnome.org.
3. Only maintainers, release team
--
Regards
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 10:17 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:21:17PM -0500, Ray Strode wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> >> > 3. Access is determined using "doap" files
> >> > 4. If
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:21:17PM -0500, Ray Strode wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > 3. Access is determined using "doap" files
>> > 4. If you're not in the doap file of that module, you cannot upload
>> It
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:21:17PM -0500, Ray Strode wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > 3. Access is determined using "doap" files
> > 4. If you're not in the doap file of that module, you cannot upload
> It's pretty common for people not listed as maintainers in the
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 07:47:26PM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>I think it's nice that currently we can upload win32 and osx builds of
> gnome
> modules/apps and have them available on gnome servers, if we take away
> shell access then perhaps the install-module/ftpadmin script should be
> In fact, I think the lack of fine grained ACLs for this sort of thing
> is one part of GNOME that work better than projects that try to lock
> things down more aggressively.
Locking stuff down means reducing the attack surface (eg getting rid of
shell accounts) and who can write stuff to trusted
12 matches
Mail list logo
