On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 06:04:58PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:38:31AM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > APT 1.5~alpha1 landed in experimental today(ish). It includes three
> > big changes (one of which, the new https support, is opt-in).
>
> 1.5~alpha2 fixes
Paul Wise wrote...
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>
> > I'm not keen on extending regular expressions like
> >
> > \.(gz|bz2|lzma|xz)$
> >
> > that I have in many places again and again.
>
> That sort of hard-coding should stop,
Understandable and desirable, but p
Maria Bisen writes:
> Also, I think the issue here it's not just proponents of lzip "coming
> here", but Debian people "going out", in what I reckon can be a conflict
> of interest.
This isn't what "conflict of interest" means. This is just an interest.
There is no conflict.
Currently, Debian
Hi Russ,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Debian has never expressed any opinion about lzip outside of our project
> mailing lists. The only reason why it's even on our radar is that
> proponents of lzip keep *coming here* and trying to push it on us. Some
> of them are polite about it, and we've had poli
I personally prefer a global 0027, but I've heard arguments for 0077.
I also did a quick web search and found wiki pages meant to discuss the
default. I imagine the most helpful course of action would be to read
through the existing discussions and then contribute facts that haven't
been shared...
Hi,
On 30.06.2017 20:41, gwmf...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> When the average user cannot change the umask
Changing the umask is the wrong fix. The correct solution is to set the
permissions of the home directory to 751, once.
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:41:22PM -0400, gwmf...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> On 2017-06-30 12:05, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56:37AM -0400, gwmf...@openmailbox.org
> >wrote:
> >>Ultimately, it wouldn't be as big a deal if it was possible to
> >>change the
> >>default umask for
On 2017-06-30 12:05, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56:37AM -0400, gwmf...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Ultimately, it wouldn't be as big a deal if it was possible to change
the
default umask for the gnome-session in Debian Stretch.
the fact that it's impossible for you, doesnt mea
Maria Bisen writes:
> After reading again Guillem Jover's answer it seems to me that the only
> marketing campaign here is Debian against lzip. Even if you don't like
> something, for whatever personal reasons, I don't think it's fine to
> influence thousands of people, and Debian has the capacit
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56:37AM -0400, gwmf...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> Ultimately, it wouldn't be as big a deal if it was possible to change the
> default umask for the gnome-session in Debian Stretch.
the fact that it's impossible for you, doesnt mean it's impossible for everyone.
sorry, but
On 2017-06-30 09:17, Russell Stuart wrote:
gwmf...@openmailbox.org is right in saying today's computer users don't
have the "sharing is what makes us bigger than the sum of the parts"
philosophy. Where he goes wrong is in assuming they share their
computers. While there was a time many people s
On 2017-06-30 00:18, darkestkhan wrote:
Are you saying that default permissions for home dirs in Debian is 755?
It was when I installed Jessie and most recently Stretch.
sc...@sl.id.au wrote:
Can you point to a real, specific security problem that this has
caused?
I already did, in my em
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 21:22 +1000, Scott Leggett wrote:
> If windows is different, it looks to be the outlier because macOS
> behaves the same way as Debian[0]:
>
> > For example, the default umask of 022 results in permissions of 644
> > on new files and 755 on new folders. Groups and other u
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sascha Steinbiss
* Package name: peframe
Version : 5.0.1
Upstream Author : Gianni Amato
* URL : https://github.com/guelfoweb/peframe
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
Description : tool to perform static a
Hi,
Sorry for the delay, but I think this needs a clarification.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> For Debian binary and source packages, there is no benefit in ECC
> in the compression layer.
>
> I'm not sure why all of this isn't obvious.
>
> As an aside: I am sceptical of the value of ECC as part of a gen
On 2017-06-29.15:43, gwmf...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> The wider community doesn't seem that concerned with the fact that all
> Debian and Ubuntu users are now (with the most recent stable releases)
> completely unable to change their default umask (and further have a default
> setting that gives th
16 matches
Mail list logo
