* Jimmy Engelbrecht [2004-04-07 18:44:04 +0200]:
Derrick J Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are the packaging scripts worth integrating into src/packaging?
What script ? :-)
So it sounds like there is more work to be done.
To really fit into the Solaris way of doing things, one should
On Wednesday, April 07, 2004 23:26:33 +0200 Sergio Gelato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many Solaris package sets are also split along *u/*r (User/Root) lines,
with the *r package usually including startup scripts and/or
configuration files. I'm not sure this is useful for OpenAFS,
though (unlike the
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think what we're hearing is not that this really bothers people
inherently, but that the documentation really needs to reflect the paths
so that people don't get confused.
I think the paths can mostly be REMOVED from the documentation..
Or have a
At 06:26 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
Not that an in-memory credential cache would make any difference in this
situation.
If you have root privs you can access it. This is true on Windows as
well. If
you are SYSTEM you can do whatever you want.
True. But that problem only occurs because the
The web pages can be generated from Tex but they are static, otherwise it is
fairly easy to define what flavor of path is required with Tex variables.
tedc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Russ Allbery
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:28
Sergio Gelato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-- a separate package for the 64-bit components (kernel module), to
be omitted on pure 32-bit installs (and for OpenAFS there is the
additional choice of full vs. nonfs modules, which may justify another
pair of packages);
I have heard that Solaris 10
Correct and the file structures could be in an appendix..
There's a lot of other references to paths besides the executables.
Figuring out where this all is located and setting the partitions up is 1/2
the problem - if you're learning.
tedc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thus spake Rodney M Dyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
True. But that problem only occurs because the kernel code allows all
memory to be read by root. It would be nice if all OS's has a
protected store memory area who's sections could only be mapped to
each authenticated user.
And who compiles and
At 07:17 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
Thus spake Rodney M Dyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
True. But that problem only occurs because the kernel code allows all
memory to be read by root. It would be nice if all OS's has a
protected store memory area who's sections could only be mapped to
each
Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jimmy Engelbrecht wrote:
Derrick J Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are the packaging scripts worth integrating into src/packaging?
What script ? :-)
remind me to beat you senseless next time i see you. that, or chlorinate
your
On Apr 7, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
This property is not new with krb5. It follows directly from the UNIX
security architecture.
If you do not trust the people who have privileged access to your
machine, then you have already lost.
I wonder how capability based OS'es might
On Apr 7, 2004, at 3:58 PM, Rodney M Dyer wrote:
At 06:26 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
Not that an in-memory credential cache would make any difference in
this situation.
If you have root privs you can access it. This is true on Windows as
well. If
you are SYSTEM you can do whatever you want.
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 07:50:30PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
Capabilities solve that problem. With a capability OS, all OS objects
(processes, files, directories, device drivers, etc.) are distinct
entities that have a unique identity and a unique set of
capabilities. The capability is
On Apr 7, 2004, at 8:07 PM, Kris Van Hees wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 07:50:30PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
Capabilities solve that problem.
Either way, as long as you have the ability to compile and install
your own
kernel, there isn't anything that can be done.
Yes, capabilities doesn't
Jason C. Wells wrote:
Will the "Convert to IFS" statement result in being able to use proper
global root convention, namely /afs?
If so, Yay!
THanks,
Jason
I doubt we will ever get /afs unless it is /afs
off of some drive letter.
The closest we can get would be a UNC name of
15 matches
Mail list logo
