Why I can't compile upower without policykit and other *kit stuff?
___
devkit-devel mailing list
devkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel
On 7 May 2010 09:02, Baybal Ni wrote:
> Why I can't compile upower without policykit and other *kit stuff?
Because UPower uses PolicyKit as a security framework. Why do you want
to change it?
Richard.
___
devkit-devel mailing list
devkit-devel@lists.fr
Yes, if it's security matter at least make it working without suid root
first, like use pam instead. This policykit is hardly a security framework.
On 7 May 2010 01:26, "Richard Hughes" wrote:
On 7 May 2010 09:02, Baybal Ni wrote:
> Why I can't compile upower without pol...
Because UPower uses
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Baybal Ni wrote:
> Yes, if it's security matter at least make it working without suid root
> first, like use pam instead. This policykit is hardly a security framework.
Can you elaborate on the last statement please?
David
Hi!
I'm one of the developer over at team-xbmc and I recently noticed that
UPower have added the Sleeping and Resuming signals, awesome!
I noticed a problem with them when implementing them into xbmc however. The
resuming signal works fine but the sleeping signal is only emitted if I call
AboutToS
On 7 May 2010 20:30, Tobias Arrskog wrote:
> I noticed a problem with them when implementing them into xbmc however. The
> resuming signal works fine but the sleeping signal is only emitted if I call
> AboutToSleep.
That sounds like a bug. I'll fix that up now.
Richard.
_
On 7 May 2010 20:48, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 7 May 2010 20:30, Tobias Arrskog wrote:
>> I noticed a problem with them when implementing them into xbmc however. The
>> resuming signal works fine but the sleeping signal is only emitted if I call
>> AboutToSleep.
>
> That sounds like a bug. I'll
On 7 May 2010 05:36, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Baybal Ni wrote:
>> Yes, if it's security matter at least make it working without suid root
>> first, like use pam instead. This policykit is hardly a security framework.
>
> Can you elaborate on the last statement please
On 7 May 2010 01:34, Baybal Ni wrote:
> Yes, if it's security matter at least make it working without suid root
> first, like use pam instead. This policykit is hardly a security framework.
>
> On 7 May 2010 01:26, "Richard Hughes" wrote:
>
> On 7 May 2010 09:02, Baybal Ni wrote:
>> Why I can't