Re: Firefox "shield"

On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 11:09 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 12/17/2017 04:09 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > On 12/17/2017 01:11 AM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote: > > > Sorry if this was discussed already, but it looks like Firefox 57 > > > on > > >

Firefox "shield"

Sorry if this was discussed already, but it looks like Firefox 57 on Fedora 26 (and I assume 27 but have not checked) in the Fedora repo has "extension.shield-recipe-client.enabled = true". 1) Is there a reason this is not turned off by default? This is being used to install extensions without

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:11 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > If someone wants to package an addon, no problem - but they should > keep it > up-to-date. > > One issue that I think is problematic is test cases for addons within > bodhi > for firefox itself. > You should not hold the release of the

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 21:55 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Adam Williamson ect.org > > wrote: > > > > (I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems > > like > > a silly idea. But oh well.) > > > > > > +1 - Yeah,

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

Hi, I just installed this; it breaks the versions of AdBlockPlus, HTTPSEverywhere, and Noscript I installed from the Fedora repo. Can we revert to 56 until 57 at least does not break our own packages? -- Ben On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 20:17 +0100, Silvia Sánchez wrote: > Hi, > I'm using Firefox

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 16:34 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 06/06/2016 03:56 PM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote: > > > >   It took me three days to find the problem the last time systemd > > caused > > unexpected behavior on my system. > What was this hard

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 01/06/16 12:19, Howard Chu wrote: > > > > > This is still looking at the problem back-asswards. The problem > > isn't > > that screen and tmux are special cases. The problem is that some > > handful > > of programs that got spawned in a

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 12:05 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > The changed default here is really about defining the lifecycle of > unprivileged code by privileged code, and thus about security. Security against what?  Who is the attacker?  What is the threat model? Bandying about the word

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 19:36 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 06/02/2016 01:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > > Well. Let's say you are responsible for the Linux desktops of a > > large > > security-senstive company (let's say bank, whatever), and the > > desktops > > are installed as

Re: Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 02:59 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: Personally I prefer data over knee jerk reactions because honestly this is what I see going on. I don't see a demand from users that want a different default I see developers who want to choose a different default based on their own

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 11:15 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote: I'm talking about the advertisement part. Some people seem to be bothered by this alone. Tiles feature indeed promotes some websites, but we already do that. No, actually we don't. We promote websites because we honestly think

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 15:12 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote: This is a moral judgment, so it's irrelevant for making a policy decision (from Fedora's point of view). Money or not, we need a consistent policy on advertisements for all upstream. How about an opt-in requirement? -- Ben

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 17:14 +, Nikos Roussos wrote: On November 18, 2014 7:08:47 PM EET, Benjamin Kreuter ben.kreu...@gmail.com wrote: How about an opt-in requirement? Yes, that would make more sense. But I didn't opt-in to see commercial websites on gnome-shell either (and I can't

Set fedora-cvs flag?

Hi everyone, I am trying to follow the procedure here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages But I cannot set the fedora-cvs flag. Am I missing some sort of permissions? What should I do? Thanks, Ben -- Benjamin R Kreuter

Looking for the Coq package maintainers

I have tried to contact the coq and emacs-common-proofgeneral package maintainers directly, but have not had much luck. If any of those maintainers can shoot me an email, that would be great. Thanks, Ben -- Benjamin R Kreuter UVA Computer Science brk...@virginia.edu KK4FJZ -- If large

Re: Looking for the Coq package maintainers

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:30:54 +0100 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: I sort of got the impression that Benjamin was looking for the *upstream* maintainers ...? Actually I was looking for Jerry; I took the rest of the discussion off-list. -- Ben -- Benjamin R Kreuter UVA Computer

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 15:21:55 Magnus Glantz wrote: On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff IIIbr...@wolff.to wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:57:20 +0100, Hans de Goedehdego...@redhat.com wrote: Hi all, For those who do

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 15:58:28 Magnus Glantz wrote: I'm not saying that a broken Adobe Flash would stop Fedora from shipping. But.. if we notice that it's broken, we can: 1) Notify Adobe about it, so they -can- provide a fix. If they do not know, they can't fix it.. The Adobe

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:43:48 Magnus Glantz wrote: On 11/17/2010 10:18 PM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote: 2) Create a work-around for the end-users (as has been done by several people in the BZ #638477-thread) This pretty much erases whatever incentive Adobe might have to actually

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:59:54 Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Because it's NOT a bug in glibc, because what glibc does is CORRECT, because it actually POINTS OUT bugs in applications which are portability issues and can hurt

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 23:27:48 Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:26:31PM -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote: On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:59:54 Matthew Garrett wrote: Pretty sure it doesn't point them out. It just breaks them. Using memcpy on overlapping ranges

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 23:30:00 Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:03:02PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: However, I still think that changing memcpy away from years of it just works is an ABI change that should not

Re: Ubuntu moving towards Wayland

On Wednesday 10 November 2010 09:21:24 Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 11/09/2010 01:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: X will run as a Wayland client. That means all applications that support X will be able to run remotely without change. Since QT and GTK both run on X and virtually all apps