How about uncommenting a line that does so. All you are buying into is
a default setup.
App authors don't ship configs like that though. Does apt ship a sudo
config? Does anything?
Perhaps you missed my opening message on this topic, except it was in
your first reply.
I never meant it is rubbish as such but I saw it as rediculously
inferior to sudo before I even read this.
http://drfav.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-quest-towards-trusted-client-applications-a-rambling/
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but that is talking about a specific set
of
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I never meant it is rubbish as such but I saw it as rediculously
inferior to sudo before I even read this.
http://drfav.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-quest-towards-trusted-client-applications-a-rambling/
On 14/01/13 20:35, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Debian having to patch KDE to use /etc for configs is simply wrong too.
huh huh, do you know if they have a fix for
http://bugs.gentoo.org/438790 to stop KDE from destroying upstream
polkit files?
Debian having to patch KDE to use /etc for configs is simply wrong too.
huh huh, do you know if they have a fix for
http://bugs.gentoo.org/438790 to stop KDE from destroying upstream
polkit files?
I don't, I just know that on Debian the configs are in /etc and the bug
you mention,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I still ascert that apps adding groups with NOPASSWD sudoers lines
perhaps even commented out by default in all or some cases is far
better than polkit for many reasons. Any counter argument can apply
to sudo too and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/01/13 09:48 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:25:01AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
William Hubbs wrote:
I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering
to discuss whether we want the new names for new
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I still ascert that apps adding groups with NOPASSWD sudoers lines
perhaps even commented out by default in all or some cases is far
better than
Unless sudo has some config setting that allows access only when
logged in via console it isn't really a solution.
Rich
man sudoers - /requiretty
I manage 'thousands' of desktops at Google and we generally like
polkit.
I never meant it is rubbish as such but I saw it as
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You could try to argue that many eyes will look at a central piece of
code but in fact less implementations will likely mean less eyes and
just assumption that a guy who got JS through as a config language has
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:19:37 +0200
Maxim Kammerer m...@dee.su wrote:
This is a major problem, there are other questionable choices that
raise the question whether developers are familiar with how things are
done on Unix:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58787
I have to confess
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Unless sudo has some config setting that allows access only when
logged in via console it isn't really a solution.
Rich
man sudoers - /requiretty
I manage 'thousands' of desktops at Google and we generally
Steven J. Long wrote:
What I'm not in favour of is making the simple cases more
difficult, to deal with the complex ones. It's completely
brain-dead thinking.
This is exactly what some people think or say when they learn that I
use Gentoo.
I appreciate Gentoo because I am able and willing to
William is packaging upstream udev for Gentoo.
You are shooting the messenger.
I expect there is 0 blame meant for William.
P.s.
Is it William that Lennart dished some blame in the direction of. I
completely disagree. It's not the job of every distro to look for all
build flags to fix
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:04:01AM +, Steven J. Long wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 William Hubbs wrote:
Steven J. Long wrote:
If you're certain that every user with a current simple setup, who
uses the kernel default names, and has such a firewall setup isn't
going to suddenly find
William Hubbs wrote:
I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering
to discuss whether we want the new names for new installs.
IMO yes we do.
What's that bug - or what is the good way to thumbs up/down?
//Peter
pgpswXbIiseJI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:25:01AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
William Hubbs wrote:
I have a bug opened with the docs team and release engineering
to discuss whether we want the new names for new installs.
IMO yes we do.
What's that bug - or what is the good way to thumbs up/down?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 William Hubbs wrote:
Steven J. Long wrote:
Obviously it's good to have the functionality should you need it, but
again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow
for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
While many packages
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
but
again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow
for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
It's a welcome option but an important question seems to be; Why wasn't
this picked up in the dev cycle?.
That would require
19 matches
Mail list logo
