> >
> > 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.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Chadwick 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/
>>
>> Perhaps
> >
> > 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
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Chadwick 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 generall
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:19:37 +0200
Maxim Kammerer 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 that de
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Kevin Chadwick 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
> everything covered.
Stil
> > 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 i
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick 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 c
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Kevin Chadwick 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 rather easily.
>
> > 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 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?
11 matches
Mail list logo
