ser-level desktop applications with the
same level of resource isolation already used with a variety of system
daemons, giving each application instance its own UID, GID, and
persistent storage directory.
In order to function, Rainbow requires a NSS module, libnss-rainbow, to
be installed and enabled in /
ed with a variety of system daemons,
giving each application instance its own UID, GID, and persistent storage
directory.
In order to function, Rainbow requires a NSS module, libnss-rainbow, to be
installed and enabled in /etc/nsswitch.conf.
>From what I can tell (as seen on bug
388864<htt
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007, Brian May wrote:
> Loïc> #406198 is about reverting the changes it does to
> Loïc> nsswitch.conf on removal, not about not updating
> Loïc> nsswitch.conf, but yes, libnss-mdns edits the conffile of
> Loïc> another package.
> Pa
>>>>> "Loïc" == Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Loïc> #406198 is about reverting the changes it does to
Loïc> nsswitch.conf on removal, not about not updating
Loïc> nsswitch.conf, but yes, libnss-mdns edits the conffile of
Loïc&
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, a default of enabled for something that is going to be pulled
> in in most systems
If mDNS is going to be pulled in on most systems, that is itself a
potential problem. What's pulling it in? If it's a desktop task or the
like, t
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Yes, but it would need to be of low priority and the default would need
> to be to add the entries in nsswitch.conf. I think it would be more
I think I'd rather have it medium or high, with a default to *disabled*.
Yes, the normal would be &
; It could ask via Debconf.
Yes, but it would need to be of low priority and the default would need
to be to add the entries in nsswitch.conf. I think it would be more
interesting to address the question of why mdns/avahi didn't disable
themselves on the system of the OP.
--
Loïc Mini
On Sunday 04 February 2007 19:48, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is one way of seeing it, however you've got to see it from the other
> way as well: how is it possible to integrate a new type of lookup
> (mDNS) on desktop machines which want RendezVous / UPnP / mDNS to work?
It cou
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007, Brian May wrote:
> Is it still the case that packages should not update
> /etc/nsswitch.conf as documented in bug #78110?
I don't think #78110 states that packages should not update
/etc/nsswitch.conf and #78110 has its youngest message in t
Hello,
Is it still the case that packages should not update
/etc/nsswitch.conf as documented in bug #78110?
The reason I ask is because libnss-mdns does just
this (e.g. see bug #406198), and I thought this
was a policy violation.
My personal opinion is that I consider /etc/nsswitch.conf, like
10 matches
Mail list logo
