On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 22:34 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
As a result, I have hal 0.5.11 installed which appears to
have--undocumentedly--suddenly required PackageKit
PackageKit != PolicyKit.
Richard.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
Hi,
(adjusting Cc list)
(Polite request: please avoid sending HTML mail)
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 22:34 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:47 PM, David Zeuthen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 15:57 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Going off
Just as a quick note, Jason's problem is completly a debian unstable
packaging issue, as far as I can tell.
Jason, as I said to you earlier, talk to the debian HAL package
maintainer. There is no PolicyKit or HAL problem here other than you
failed to find documentation to help with your weird
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM, David Zeuthen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So maybe you just haven't tried hard enough.
Fuck you.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 18:40 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
Fuck you.
I don't think so.
David
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
2008/7/22 Rob Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Rob,
Just as a quick note, Jason's problem is completly a debian unstable
packaging issue, as far as I can tell.
Care to eloborate, why and what the actual problem actually is
(especially regarding Debian)?
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the
Le mardi 22 juillet 2008, à 18:40 -0500, Jason D. Clinton a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM, David Zeuthen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So maybe you just haven't tried hard enough.
Fuck you.
Come on. You know it's not going to help your cause to reply like this,
don't you?
Vincent
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/22 Rob Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Rob,
Just as a quick note, Jason's problem is completly a debian unstable
packaging issue, as far as I can tell.
Care to eloborate, why and what the actual problem actually
2008/7/23 Jason D. Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/22 Rob Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Rob,
Just as a quick note, Jason's problem is completly a debian unstable
packaging issue, as far as I can tell.
Care to
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 19:11 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
The issue is that there is no user documentation at all. Not in the
distribution. Not in the GUI with a Help button. Not in stub README
files. Nothing. ...
Nothing? Did you even look at the links I sent in my last mail? Your
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 19:24 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
If that's your policy, then you need to
patch /etc/dbus-1/system.d/hal.conf to NOT use PolicyKit in a package
that doesn't have support for it.
There's no way to specify in a D-Bus .conf that it uses PolicyKit or
not.
This
2008/7/23 Jason D. Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/usr/share/PolicyKit/policy files in the 0.5.11 upstream distribution
are
not being installed by the Debian hal package.
That's quite simple. The current hal package we
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's your policy, then you need to patch
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/hal.conf
to NOT use PolicyKit in a package that doesn't have support for it. This
is--AFAICT--an upstream bug in hal that this stanza is not removed
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Jason D. Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is the PK bits that David was discussion in his previous message that
are in the Debian hal which appears to be a security problem, if nothing
else:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:47 PM, David Zeuthen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 15:57 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Going off topic a bit: It would be really nice if PolicyKit had a proper
web page and mailing list. It's too important for information on it to
be so fragmented.
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 03:50 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 10:39 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote:
I'm currently trying to prepare 2.23.4 GNOME release and it seems you
have enforced usage of policy-gnome in latest gnome-power-manager by
default, since --gconf-defaults is
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 15:57 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Going off topic a bit: It would be really nice if PolicyKit had a proper
web page and mailing list. It's too important for information on it to
be so fragmented.
Right. I'm actually going to try and fix this (dedicated mailing list
and
Le jeudi 19 juin 2008 à 03:50 +0100, Richard Hughes a écrit :
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 10:39 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote:
I'm currently trying to prepare 2.23.4 GNOME release and it seems you
have enforced usage of policy-gnome in latest gnome-power-manager by
default, since --gconf-defaults
Le mercredi 07 mai 2008 à 16:32 +0100, Richard Hughes a écrit :
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 17:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
s/2.26/2.24/ I guess? :-)
I figured I was too late for 2.24 - if not, even better.
I'm currently trying to prepare 2.23.4 GNOME release and it seems you
have enforced usage
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 10:39 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote:
I'm currently trying to prepare 2.23.4 GNOME release and it seems you
have enforced usage of policy-gnome in latest gnome-power-manager by
default, since --gconf-defaults is enabled by default and it requires
policykit-gnome.
Ahh,
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 15:37 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
Considering that PolicyKit is just one mechanism to support
authentication management, I guess I do not really understand the
need to make PolicyKit mandatory. Since GNOME is free software, I
would think that if Sun, or anybody, wants
Colin:
Yes, I think Jason was being unfair; as far as I know RBAC predates
PolicyKit, and obviously Solaris can't just drop it in the near
future.
However - I do think it makes sense for a technology like this to be
integrated into the desktop.
Oh, I agree. I very much support
I would like to propose PolicyKit[1] as an external dep for 2.26 - it's
mostly API stable[2], and is now being used as an optional dep in many
modules in gnome svn and HAL.
I would like to depend on it for gnome-power-manager, and I hate all the
#ifdefs. Does anybody have any problems with
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to propose PolicyKit[1] as an external dep for 2.26 - it's
mostly API stable[2], and is now being used as an optional dep in many
modules in gnome svn and HAL.
I would like to depend on it for
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 11:23 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to propose PolicyKit[1] as an external dep for 2.26 - it's
mostly API stable[2], and is now being used as an optional dep in many
modules in
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Matthias Clasen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the patches are using PolicyKit-gnome, too. If we allow
dependencies on PolicyKit, we should allow PolicyKit-gnome, too, since
it makes it very easy to write UIs that trigger privileged operations
and handle
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Patryk Zawadzki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Matthias Clasen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the patches are using PolicyKit-gnome, too. If we allow
dependencies on PolicyKit, we should allow PolicyKit-gnome, too, since
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 17:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
s/2.26/2.24/ I guess? :-)
I figured I was too late for 2.24 - if not, even better.
Richard.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 17:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 07 mai 2008, à 16:18 +0100, Richard Hughes a écrit :
I would like to propose PolicyKit[1] as an external dep for 2.26 - it's
mostly API stable[2], and is now being used as an optional dep in many
modules in gnome svn and
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 17:29 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 11:23 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to propose PolicyKit[1] as an external dep for 2.26 - it's
mostly API stable[2], and
I would like to propose PolicyKit[1] as an external dep for 2.26 - it's
mostly API stable[2], and is now being used as an optional dep in many
modules in gnome svn and HAL.
I would like to depend on it for gnome-power-manager, and I hate all the
#ifdefs. Does anybody have any problems
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Brian Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do not think it is a problem for PolicyKit to be an external
dependency for GNOME. However, there will probably be people at Sun
working to #ifdef out PolicyKit code in the modules that tend to get
shipped with
Jason:
If Sun wants to do something completely different from what the rest of
the community is doing, it seems like the responsibility for bearing the
consequences of that course of action should lay squarely on the
shoulders of Sun's engineering teams.
Understood. I was not really
33 matches
Mail list logo
