On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
however i'd had liked the change, that way i could had vserver
system without any suid-root programs present.
Feel free to split again and handle all the unhappy devs :)
how about split, but have strict dep for some time? (this question
Witam
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
however i'd had liked the change, that way i could had vserver
system without any suid-root programs present.
Feel free to split again and handle all the unhappy devs :)
how about split, but have strict dep for some time? (this
On Thursday 26 June 2008 12:39, Pawel Golaszewski wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
however i'd had liked the change, that way i could had vserver
system without any suid-root programs present.
Feel free to split again and handle all the unhappy devs :)
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
I'd vote for adding Suggests but somewhere else than coreutils (as it
re-adds the circular dependency) or adding Requires to rc-scripts (as
daemon --user foo uses su).
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
I'd vote for adding Suggests but somewhere else than coreutils (as it
re-adds the circular dependency) or adding Requires to rc-scripts (as
daemon --user foo uses su).
All th builders are now broken due to split. su was used there and
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 23:37, Marcin Krol wrote:
The problem with split is that people using su to switch to root will
have a problem after doing simple upgrade (most people won't notice -su
subpackage).
Suggests for -su subpackage? Everyone will be prompted on upgrade to
install it or
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:50:02 +0200, Pawel Golaszewski wrote:
IMO there should be added R: coreutils-su in main coreutils and leave it
for, let's say, 6 months. All current systems will be updated in this
Don't forget about purpose of this separation - it has been done to
break R loop, so
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:39 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
however playing with R: -su in rc-scripts, C: rc-scripts foo in coreutils
should make most installs safe (i don't know any system without
rc-scripts) :)
~: rpm -q rc-scripts
package rc-scripts is not installed
;]
--
Tomasz
2008/6/25 Tomasz Pala [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:39 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
however playing with R: -su in rc-scripts, C: rc-scripts foo in coreutils
should make most installs safe (i don't know any system without
rc-scripts) :)
~: rpm -q rc-scripts
package
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:39 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
however playing with R: -su in rc-scripts, C: rc-scripts foo in coreutils
should make most installs safe (i don't know any system without
There's one more nasty (really) hack possible in %pre (or %post maybe?):
[ -x /bin/su ] cp
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 12:07, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:39 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
however playing with R: -su in rc-scripts, C: rc-scripts foo in
coreutils should make most installs safe (i don't know any system without
rc-scripts) :)
~: rpm -q rc-scripts
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 13:06:18 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
yeah probably hacked system (not pure pld install),
Yep.
as even openssh-server requires rc-scripts.
As a matter of fact it's my own workstation:
~: rpm -Va --nofiles | grep rc-scripts
does your system (other than for admin)
2008/6/25 Tomasz Pala [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 13:06:18 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
does your system (other than for admin) needs su?
No - I've got an priviledged account with RSA key on every machine.
I've just gave you some example of system without rc-scripts ;]
This
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Tomasz Pala wrote:
IMO there should be added R: coreutils-su in main coreutils and
leave it for, let's say, 6 months. All current systems will be updated
in this
Don't forget about purpose of this separation - it has been done to
break R loop, so this way makes no
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 17:00, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
2008/6/25 Tomasz Pala [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 13:06:18 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
does your system (other than for admin) needs su?
No - I've got an priviledged account with RSA key on every machine.
I've just
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however i'd had liked the change, that way i could had vserver system without
any suid-root programs present.
Feel free to split again and handle all the unhappy devs :)
--
Patryk Zawadzki
PLD Linux Distribution
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 18:28, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however i'd had liked the change, that way i could had vserver system
without any suid-root programs present.
Feel free to split again and handle all the unhappy
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 18:28, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however i'd had liked the change, that way i could had vserver system
without any suid-root
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 01:59:04 Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
The problem we are currently facing is that installing packages to a
fresh system results in poldek being confused about coreutils + pam
circular deps.
i guess it's
On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 01:59:04 Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
The problem we are currently facing is that installing packages to a
fresh system results in poldek being confused
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 01:59:04 Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
The problem we are currently facing
The problem with split is that people using su to switch to root will have a
problem after doing simple upgrade (most people won't notice -su subpackage).
Suggests for -su subpackage? Everyone will be prompted on upgrade to
install it or not.
M.
On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 01:59:04 Patryk
Or use lua in pam's %post.
LUA has no way to chmod files without the lua-fs module. We can't load
additional modules in spec files.
2) split coreutils into coreutils and coreutils base where *-base
contains all binaries except sudo and runuser as those depend on pam;
make and pam should
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 01:59:04 Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
The problem we are currently facing is that installing packages to a
fresh system results in poldek being confused about coreutils + pam
circular deps.
i guess it's rather rpm being confused? the circular loops can be broken with
work
2) split coreutils into coreutils and coreutils base where *-base
contains all binaries except sudo and runuser as those depend on pam;
make and pam should then require coreutils-base instead of coreutils
and we get a clean dependency tree
If we don't have a huge disagreement here, I'll
to %posttrans so they are
executed after the transaction is complete - ugly but could work
Or use lua in pam's %post.
2) split coreutils into coreutils and coreutils base where *-base
contains all binaries except sudo and runuser as those depend on pam;
make and pam should then require coreutils-base
27 matches
Mail list logo
