Hi
I am find problems trying to configure the sudoers on ds-389...
This is the far I have reached but still is not working... I cannot
still download any rule at all
the user username belongs to group1
is there anything I might be missing at all?
Sudoers Configuration in ds-389
---
dn:
Sorry Guys
I saw the light after hours...
Solution:
for pam.d/sudo
#%PAM-1.0
auth include system-auth
accountinclude system-auth
password include system-auth
sessionoptional pam_keyinit.so revoke
sessionrequired pam_limits.so
And for the ou=SUDOers
On 16. 6. 2014 at 07:19:45, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 06/15/2014 11:23 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/15/14 19:02, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 18:27 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
OK I read FAQ.
http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/user_faq.html#why-do-i-get-different-resul
On 06/16/14 00:27, Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
On 06/09/2014 06:00 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:59:15AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
till October) will give folks plenty of time to hone their dnf skills.
IMO, for many (majority?) it will be a drop-in replacement for yum.
Yes,
On 06/16/14 16:37, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
So there is still a considerable difference in what each of them does here,
I ran into this the other day. It would seem the way dnf handles caching is
different from yum. Not 100% sure/convinced this fixed my problembut
after
After last firefox update the NTLM auth do not work anymore.
I have download the previous version of FF from Fedora old repo
(firefox-29.0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm) and install it: NTLM auth work.
(NOTE: yum downgrade firefox do not work with this error)
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running
On 06/16/14 17:15, Dario Lesca wrote:
After last firefox update the NTLM auth do not work anymore.
I have download the previous version of FF from Fedora old repo
(firefox-29.0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm) and install it: NTLM auth work.
(NOTE: yum downgrade firefox do not work with this error)
On 06/16/14 04:42, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 16:37, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
So there is still a considerable difference in what each of them does here,
I ran into this the other day. It would seem the way dnf handles caching is different from yum.
Not 100%
Il giorno lun, 16/06/2014 alle 17.54 +0800, Ed Greshko ha scritto:
One thing you can try.
In FF30 they seem to have added a new parameter
network.negotiate-auth.allow-insecure-ntlm-v1 to about:config.
By default it is set to false. Try setting it to true.
I love this kind of suggest
On 14. 6. 2014 at 11:05:03, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 06/14/2014 12:05 AM, Aleksandar Kostadinov wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote, On 06/07/2014 03:57 PM (EEST):
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 07:47:37 -0500
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
For one thing the depsolving algorithm used by yum is slow.
Not so an
On 6/16/2014 1:05 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 12:27, Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
By the way, 'dnf erase kernel' scares me :-O
FWIW, it has been suggested that the DNF developers would consider this a bug
if the number of CC's on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
was over
On 06/16/14 19:00, David wrote:
On 6/16/2014 1:05 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 12:27, Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
By the way, 'dnf erase kernel' scares me :-O
FWIW, it has been suggested that the DNF developers would consider this a
bug if the number of CC's on
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 21:12 +0200, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 06/09/14 16:28, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Do you have the bug reference? I'd rather find out before dnf leaves me
with a non-bootable system. The reason I'm harping on about it is that
in a thread on this list a few months
On 6/16/2014 7:19 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 19:00, David wrote:
On 6/16/2014 1:05 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 12:27, Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
By the way, 'dnf erase kernel' scares me :-O
FWIW, it has been suggested that the DNF developers would consider this a
bug if the number of
On 06/16/14 18:33, Dario Lesca wrote:
I love this kind of suggest because it solve the problem.
With this setting to true, the NTLM of FF30 work again
Many Thanks
You're welcome.
This setting does seem to indicate that if you have control over the other
system you should update it to
On 16. 6. 2014 at 07:49:55, David wrote:
On 6/16/2014 7:19 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 19:00, David wrote:
On 6/16/2014 1:05 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 12:27, Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
By the way, 'dnf erase kernel' scares me :-O
FWIW, it has been suggested that the DNF
Hi
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing the
kernel? In 10+ years using Linux I have never managed to do this
accidentally.
You are assuming limited by your own experience that this is done
accidentally.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 14:45:17 +0200,
Jan Zelený jzel...@redhat.com wrote:
ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing the
kernel? In 10+ years using Linux I have never managed to do this accidentally.
That being said, if users accidentally instruct yum to erase
On 06/16/14 04:42, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 16:37, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
So there is still a considerable difference in what each of them
does here,
I ran into this the other day. It would seem the way dnf
handles caching is different from yum. Not 100%
On 06/16/2014 03:23 PM, Paul Knox-Kennedy wrote:
On 06/16/14 04:42, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/14 16:37, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
So there is still a considerable difference in what each of them
does here,
I ran into this the other day. It would seem the way dnf
handles
On 16. 6. 2014 at 09:19:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing
the
kernel? In 10+ years using Linux I have never managed to do this
accidentally.
You are assuming limited
On 06/16/2014 04:04 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
On 16. 6. 2014 at 09:19:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing
the
kernel? In 10+ years using Linux I have never managed to do this
I ran sudo yum update -y a few days ago, as I often do, and I saw the
following error:
Error: Package:
kmod-VirtualBox-3.14.6-200.fc20.x86_64-4.3.12-1.fc20.2.x86_64
(rpmfusion-free-updates)
Requires: kernel-uname-r = 3.14.6-200.fc20.x86_64
Installed:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:36:02 +0800, Someone wrote:
I ran sudo yum update -y a few days ago, as I often do, and I saw the
following error:
Error: Package:
kmod-VirtualBox-3.14.6-200.fc20.x86_64-4.3.12-1.fc20.2.x86_64
(rpmfusion-free-updates)
Requires: kernel-uname-r =
On 06/16/2014 11:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Once you've booted with a newer kernel, you could uninstall older kernel
packages *and* any kmod packages for those kernels.
What would that look like, in my case?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:04:24PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
You are assuming limited by your own experience that this is done
accidentally.
And hence the poll
I'm a little skeptical that the poll will reach the right segment of
responders to get a valuable response.
--
Matthew Miller
Il giorno lun, 16/06/2014 alle 20.39 +0800, Ed Greshko ha scritto:
You're welcome.
This setting does seem to indicate that if you have control over the
other system you should update it to run v2 which is considered more
secure.
The server to which I connect and use the NTLM V1 is a MS
*Security*
*NTLMv1 auth has been disabled, NTLM support on non-Windows platforms is
now deprecated*
- Bug 828183 ? Firefox enables insecure NTLM (pre-NTLMv2) authentication
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=828183
- Bug 999306 ? Allow generic NTLM v1 if pref set
On 06/12/2014 10:14 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com
mailto:dwa...@redhat.com wrote:
The full unifi software is java with a mongodb database backend
and works fine. I have a RPM I created, the only problem I
haven't been
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/12/2014 10:14 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com
wrote:
The full unifi software is java with a mongodb database backend and
works fine. I have a RPM
On 06/16/2014 01:35 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com
mailto:dwa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/12/2014 10:14 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Daniel J Walsh
dwa...@redhat.com mailto:dwa...@redhat.com
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/16/2014 01:35 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 06/12/2014 10:14 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Daniel J Walsh
I have a Dell M4800 with a 3200x1800 display, an nVidia Quadro 2100M,
and Fedora 20. It was working very well. But after installing
updates today, the gnome display manager cannot start. Anyone know of
a fix?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change
On 06/16/2014 02:15 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com
mailto:dwa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/16/2014 01:35 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel J Walsh
dwa...@redhat.com mailto:dwa...@redhat.com
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/16/2014 02:15 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
Ok, just to be clear, I still need to remove the (/.*)? parts? I found
the packaging draft I referred to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux
Which
On 06/16/14 14:45, Jan Zelený wrote:
We originally didn't want to implement anything like this for three reasons:
a) in our opinion, dnf should not do the thinking for admins
It should have sensible defaults so that a user can not hose the system
by accident.
What would the use case be to
On 16.06.2014 22:02, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 06/16/14 14:45, Jan Zelený wrote:
...
ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing the
kernel? In 10+ years using Linux I have never managed to do this accidentally.
Well, with 'yum erase kernel' you can not
On 06/16/2014 05:45 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing the
kernel?
I can remember needing to get rid of all kernels except for the running
one on at least one occasion. (It was the oldest one and for some
reason the two newer ones
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:45:17PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
ad b) how many times have this feature actually saved you from erasing the
kernel? In 10+ years using Linux I have never managed to do this
accidentally.
That being said, if users accidentally instruct yum to erase the running
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:02:52PM +0200, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 06/16/14 14:45, Jan Zelený wrote:
feel free to reopen the bug too, otherwise it might get off the radar.
How do I, as a normal user, re-open a bug? Can not see any way more than
cloning it. Is that how it's supposed to be
40 matches
Mail list logo
