On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:43:43PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 2/10/2014 4:36 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Phillip, you've asked me about this a number of times. I think the
> > work involved is fairly clear, although I don't seem to have
> > managed to make time for it personally. Perhaps, ra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/10/2014 4:36 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> Phillip, you've asked me about this a number of times. I think the
> work involved is fairly clear, although I don't seem to have
> managed to make time for it personally. Perhaps, rather than
> continuing
Ubuntu no longer uses the admin group (and, as far as I can tell,
never used the admin username).
http://askubuntu.com/a/122500/5682
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/policykit-1/+bug/893842
Based on this, I suggest removing admin from the list of reserved names.
--
Josh Kelley
--
To
Colin Watson writes:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:22:26PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 11.02.14 15:56, Colin Watson wrote:
>> >All I have left to say is that the admins in question are my customers,
>>
>> so, the company is not your customer, but its admins are?
>
> Oh, whatever.
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:04:10 +
Source: rootskel
Binary: rootskel
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.107
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Changed-By: Colin Watson
Descriptio
rootskel_1.107_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
rootskel_1.107.dsc
rootskel_1.107.tar.xz
rootskel_1.107_i386.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.deb
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:46:41 +
Source: debootstrap
Binary: debootstrap debootstrap-udeb
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.0.58
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Changed-By
debootstrap_1.0.58_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
debootstrap_1.0.58.dsc
debootstrap_1.0.58.tar.xz
debootstrap_1.0.58_all.deb
debootstrap-udeb_1.0.58_all.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UN
rootskel_1.107_i386.changes uploaded successfully to ftp-master.debian.org
along with the files:
rootskel_1.107.dsc
rootskel_1.107.tar.xz
rootskel_1.107_i386.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host ravel.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ..
debootstrap_1.0.58_i386.changes uploaded successfully to ftp-master.debian.org
along with the files:
debootstrap_1.0.58.dsc
debootstrap_1.0.58.tar.xz
debootstrap_1.0.58_all.deb
debootstrap-udeb_1.0.58_all.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host ravel.debian.org)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:40:22PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So the first question I have about this if we can get
> ftp.TLD.debian.org certificates for this, and what happens when
> that host is down and DNS gets pointed to a different host?
>
> I have to guess that we should only do that on th
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:22:26PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 11.02.14 15:56, Colin Watson wrote:
> >All I have left to say is that the admins in question are my customers,
>
> so, the company is not your customer, but its admins are?
Oh, whatever. I'm not interested in this kind
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:45:53PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > (And yes, I know that this is only of any actual use if we do
> > certificate checks. Right now the way I have things hooked up is that
> > you can add certificates to the d-i initramfs, either by rebuilding with
> > SSL_CERTS
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Donald Norwood wrote:
This topic has come up in mirrors a few times from users and the
general conscientious was stated rather well by Mattias. As it
stands, and to my knowledge, there are a handful of servers set up
to support https.
The question really
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Donald Norwood wrote:
> This topic has come up in mirrors a few times from users and the
> general conscientious was stated rather well by Mattias. As it
> stands, and to my knowledge, there are a handful of servers set up
> to support https.
>
> The quest
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:05:44PM +0100, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:04:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I'm working on adding HTTPS support to d-i. Now, I know that we already
have int
On 02/11/2014 09:31 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:05:44PM +0100, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:04:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I'm working on adding HTTPS support to d-i. Now, I know that we already
have i
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:05:44PM +0100, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Colin Watson wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:04:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >>I'm working on adding HTTPS support to d-i. Now, I know that we already
> >>have integrity by way of the GPG signature
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:04:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I'm working on adding HTTPS support to d-i. Now, I know that we already
have integrity by way of the GPG signature chain, but this isn't for
that; this is in response to feedback Canonical ha
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:04:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> I'm working on adding HTTPS support to d-i. Now, I know that we already
> have integrity by way of the GPG signature chain, but this isn't for
> that; this is in response to feedback Canonical has had from some Ubuntu
> customers (typ
Hi,
I'm working on adding HTTPS support to d-i. Now, I know that we already
have integrity by way of the GPG signature chain, but this isn't for
that; this is in response to feedback Canonical has had from some Ubuntu
customers (typically of the large and corporate variety) that they want
to do a
21 matches
Mail list logo
