On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:06:06 -0500, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> default: no.
> Why not on by default, with a targeted policy, for everyone?
> SELinux's flexibility allows one to easily turn it off for specifi
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:40:41 -0500, Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj, if you're referring to our conversation earlier on IRC, I
> said that I have no personal interest in selinux, but I had no
> problems with it being included as long as it's not a significant
> performance hit.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:18:43 -0600, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:31:09AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Your project registration for Alioth has been denied.
>>
>> Project Full Name: Window Maker Debian Package Project Unix Name:
>> wmaker
>>
>> R
>From a thread in -devel, dated September, after an ITP for Swedish
locale files for Mozilla stuff...
Quoting Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>
> >I agree too. Actually, it makes more sense if we do a single package and
> >integrate there mechanisms to
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.kernel as well.
Hi,
I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them
disabled by default at boot time. Thi
On Thursday 04 November 2004 17.46, Otto Wyss wrote:
> Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figures!
Who is "you" here? Please pay attention to attribution on mailing list
postings - especially if you're starting a new thread with your mail. I
posted this statement about cpu
* Matthew Palmer
| See, that's the thing that the FAQ was unclear on. If you don't have to
| sign all headers, then you're OK. I was thinking the attachment of
| Received: headers as being particularly problematic. To quote the FAQ:
|
| "Mailing lists that do not change the content or re-arra
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
> compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them
> disabled by default at boot time. This can be accomplished by
I second this request.
--
"One disk to rule t
Christian Perrier wrote:
From a thread in -devel, dated September, after an ITP for Swedish
locale files for Mozilla stuff...
I didn't pay to much attention to that thread, I am discovering it now.
Quoting Alexander Sack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
I agree too. Actua
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> > default: no.
>
> Why not on by default,
i would agree with stephen that it should be compiled in,
default options "selinux=no".
that gives people th
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 23:06, Colin Walters wrote:
> Why don't we just run say EROS (http://www.eros-
> os.org/) instead? A: Because what makes SELinux interesting is that it
> can run all of our legacy software. By not shipping it on everywhere,
> we're not tapping that ability.
Some of us might
Hi All,
I was considering packaging 'Cube' (http://www.cubeengine.com/) in order
to get to grips with debian package management; and then possibly find a
sponsor.
However, there appears to be a latent licencing problem.
The engine code is distributed under a licence which I believe is free
(zlib
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:38:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a question you'll have to ask of Yahoo and the SPF people. My guess
> is that the pushers of these schemes want their thing adopted for whatever
> reason (corporate greed, personal gratification, whatever), but
On Friday 05 November 2004 11:12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
> > compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving
> > them disabled by default at boot time. Th
Hi!
Manoj Srivastava [2004-11-05 1:39 -0600]:
> I would once again like to bring up the possibility of
> compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them
> disabled by default at boot time.
> [...]
> I think this would be really helpful to our users, since the
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> > > default: no.
> >
> > Why not on by default,
>
> i would agree with steph
I think, that this would not be too hard to implement. On the other
hand, there would still be problems that some translations might not be
ready if mozilla* packages become ready to go in. IMHO, doing so
looks like
a trick to declare translations not to be release critical and in fact
inferior t
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 10:11:01AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:06:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > >
> > > > def
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:11, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 10:28 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > i would agree with stephen that it should be compiled in,
> > default options "selinux=no".
>
> I don't believe Stephen said that. He said that the performance hit in
>
On Nov 05, Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I'd prefer the default to be selinux=1, but as a temporary
> measure to getting SELinux compiled into the Debian kernel at all, I
> think it is reasonable to make the boot-time default selinux=0 in their
> kernel, as SuSE did with
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:22:30PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:15:19AM +0100,
> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 47 lines which said:
>
> > If you know easy way to avoid this problem exists, please let me
> > know.
>
> I remail my emai
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:57:52 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
It is the job of the kernel team to maintain the kernel. That includes
ensuring the kernel runs correctly and quic
> > > IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> > > the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> > > users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen rsyncs.
> >
> > Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figur
(...)
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
yes, it is. But we have to weight in the needs of our users. We want, after
all, our operating system to be used in a large set of environments and
some of those might break when enabli
Greetings,
I mailed the list recently regarding my ITP AIPS: Astronomical Image
Processing System. For anyone who might have considered sponsoring,
here is some more info regarding its size.
Source tar.gz: 67MB
Initial .deb Size: 148MB
Current .deb Size: 16MB arch dependent, 52MB arch independen
Marcelo E. Magallon, 2004-11-05 01:50:05 +0100 :
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:31:09AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your project registration for Alioth has been denied.
[...]
> > If you decide to use an alioth project to comaintain a package,
> > you need to include a "pkg-" prefix in
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:02:04 +0100, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi! Manoj Srivastava [2004-11-05 1:39 -0600]:
>> I would once again like to bring up the possibility of compiling in
>> support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them disabled by
>> default at boot time. [...]
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 15:57 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> response 3: _is_ it the job of debian developers to dictate the minimum
> acceptable security level?
It is absolutely Debian's job to provide a baseline level of security by
default. Debian doesn't let you install a syste
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:48:29AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:38:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's a question you'll have to ask of Yahoo and the SPF people. My guess
> > is that the pushers of these schemes want their thing adopted for whate
29 matches
Mail list logo
