On 05/31/2012 02:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Heya!
>
> Please be aware that since the most recent systemd uploads /tmp is now
> in tmpfs by default in Rawhide/F18.
[...]
> This will most likely lead to a problem or two with software that isn't
> happy about /tmp being small.
For example "s
On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:06:44 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On it. If someone else is also, let me know and I'll stop.
What's up with the maintainer?
Last built the package half a year ago:
* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3460
* https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/use
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 20:02 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> >> And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is really
> >> not a good tool for spec maintenance.
> >
> > Not
On Thursday 31 May 2012 02:20:26 Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 04:16 PM, Marc Deop wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 May 2012 10:04:49 Pádraig Brady wrote:
> >> I've some notes about 256 colors here:
> >> http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/terminal_colours/#256
> >>
> >
> > That information is mostly f
On Wed, 30.05.12 19:04, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> > If you have an explicit /tmp entry in fstab things should continue to
> > work the same as before. If you don't then you will now get a tmpfs on
> > /tmp by default.
>
> What does an fstab entry that means, "leave /tm
[snip]
>>
>> What I'd do (I will do if you prefer) is to propose the feature at:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/FeatureList
>> That will both provide a todo list and allow voting on acceptance.
>>
>
> That sounds reasonable, +1 for me here! :)
This thread was to get the whole probl
On 05/31/2012 08:14 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 02:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> Heya!
>>
>> Please be aware that since the most recent systemd uploads /tmp is now
>> in tmpfs by default in Rawhide/F18.
> [...]
>> This will most likely lead to a problem or two with software that
On 05/31/2012 12:45 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 05/31/2012 08:14 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 05/31/2012 02:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya!
Please be aware that since the most recent systemd uploads /tmp is now
in tmpfs by default in Rawhide/F18.
[...]
This will most likely lead to a
On 05/31/2012 11:09 AM, Marc Deop i Argemí wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 02:20:26 Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 05/30/2012 04:16 PM, Marc Deop wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 30 May 2012 10:04:49 Pádraig Brady wrote:
I've some notes about 256 colors here:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/terminal_co
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:55:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Now /var/tmp should be "more persistent" which we don't need,
> Correct, using /var/tmp is wrong and a mistake.
>
> IMO, advising people to modify their code to using /var/tmp instead of /tmp
> is absurd and evidence of ignorance
On 05/31/2012 12:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:45 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Now /var/tmp should be "more persistent" which we don't need,
> Correct, using /var/tmp is wrong and a mistake.
>
> IMO, advising people to modify their code to using /var/tmp instead of /tmp
> is abs
On Thu, 31.05.12 08:51, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:55:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> Now /var/tmp should be "more persistent" which we don't need,
> > Correct, using /var/tmp is wrong and a mistake.
> >
> > IMO, advising people to modify their c
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:06:44 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> On it. If someone else is also, let me know and I'll stop.
>
> What's up with the maintainer?
>
> Last built the package half a year ago:
> * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/p
On 05/31/2012 08:59 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 31.05.12 08:51, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:55:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Now /var/tmp should be "more persistent" which we don't need,
Correct, using /var/tmp is wrong and a mistake.
perl-Net-OpenSSH has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Net-OpenSSH-0.57-3.fc18.noarch requires
openssh-clients(%{__isa_name}-%{__isa_bits})
On i386:
perl-Net-OpenSSH-0.57-3.fc18.noarch requires
openssh-clients(%{__isa_name}-%{__isa_bits})
Please resolve th
Compose started at Thu May 31 08:15:07 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[389-admin]
389-admin-1.1.28-1.fc18.i686 requires libicuuc.so.48
389-admin-1.1.28-1.fc18.i686 requires libicui18n.so.48
389-admin-1.1.28-1.fc18.
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 02:40 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Heya!
>
> Please be aware that since the most recent systemd uploads /tmp is now
> in tmpfs by default in Rawhide/F18.
>
> For details please see this feature page:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/tmp-on-tmpfs
>
> If you
From Fedora 18 on, Fedora will no longer include the freedom to for a
user to create a fork or respin which is the technological equal of
the Project's output. Instead, this freedom will be available
exclusively from Microsoft for $99 under unspecified conditions.
I wish this were a joke.
http://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2012 02:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> From Fedora 18 on, Fedora will no longer include the freedom to for
> a user to create a fork or respin which is the technological equal
> of the Project's output. Instead, this freedom will be available
On 05/31/2012 09:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
From Fedora 18 on, Fedora will no longer include the freedom to for a
user to create a fork or respin which is the technological equal of
the Project's output. Instead, this freedom will be available
exclusively from Microsoft for $99 under unspecif
Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell said:
> >From Fedora 18 on, Fedora will no longer include the freedom to for a
> user to create a fork or respin which is the technological equal of
> the Project's output. Instead, this freedom will be available
> exclusively from Microsoft for $99 under unspecif
commit 9465cc196b0127c9f0a9b6c19165e07d31212cc8
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Thu May 31 16:14:54 2012 +0200
Skip optional Test::Pod on bootstraping perl
perl-Filter.spec |7 ++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Filter.spec b/perl-Filter.spec
index
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> abundantly clear that there are no restrictions placed on users who do
> not wish to have the secure boot signature checks enforced.
Yes, I read it and spent several hours talking to MJG before he posted
it, in fact.
I thought I'd pay him
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2012 03:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I thought I'd pay him the respect of sleeping on it and giving
> someone in support of this rather secretive move time to post about
> it and discuss it, so that people wouldn't be learning about it
> fr
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:23 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > abundantly clear that there are no restrictions placed on users who do
> > not wish to have the secure boot signature checks enforced.
>
> Yes, I read it and spent several hours
On 05/31/2012 10:23 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
You're wrong. Users will have the ability to create their own signing
certificates with openssl and sign their own binaries. Using MS as a signer
only buys you the convenience of not making ever
Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell said:
> Under this model there will be two classes of distributor: One which
> loads easily on systems, and one which requires the additional effort
> of disabling secure boot or installing user keys. (And ARM will be
> even more interesting...)
The basic fact is
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:23 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> this will mean that Fedora will be losing a freedom it
> once had— the freedom to make forks at no cost which are technically
> equal to the projects, ones which are just as compatible and easy to
> install.
I don't really think this is
On 05/31/2012 10:52 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell said:
>> Under this model there will be two classes of distributor: One which
>> loads easily on systems, and one which requires the additional effort
>> of disabling secure boot or installing user keys. (And ARM will b
On 05/31/2012 09:27 AM, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>
>
> On 05/31/2012 08:59 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> * We bring Fedora closer to commercial Unixes and other Linux distributions.
>
> Um, so? Any solaris admin worth their salt kills the ram-based /tmp as soon
> as the install is finished. Its
Hi Guys,
Thanks for looking at this issue, it has now been resolved with the help
if the guys at irc perl-SDL. The problem was a few bugs in the inline c
code in which the memory being used was not cleared first.
I'm currently trying to contact the original author with a patch, but
given it'
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for
perl-FusionInventory-Agent-Task-Deploy:
1f0378c8463460ac4a4d605ddd38ccb4 FusionInventory-Agent-Task-Deploy-2.0.0.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedorapro
commit f7f5b308e4725323642f95e6c9fae22d1c34a8fc
Author: remi
Date: Thu May 31 17:27:48 2012 +0200
new package, import from review
.gitignore |1 +
perl-FusionInventory-Agent-Task-Deploy.spec | 114 +++
sources
On 05/31/2012 11:10 AM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
This will exclude a whole class of usages that are currently available
to Fedora users, such as the ReSpin projects that Fedora Unity used to
produce from stock Fedora packages as well as any other downstream
projects that build on Fedora.
It
Hi,
I'm having a problem building my cross-compiler gcc package as it requires a
cross-compiler binutils package to be built first.
I managed to build the rawhide build with:
fedpkg chain-build --target=rawhide cross-binutils :
but chain-build doesn't work for F16 and F17 as far as I c
On 05/31/2012 08:42 AM, David Howells wrote:
Can anyone suggest how to do it right?
You don't. chain-build only works on build targets that automatically
self-update. Released fedora build targets do not do that. You have to
either get your build shipped in updates (stable) or create a bui
On 05/31/2012 08:57 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:45 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Now /var/tmp should be "more persistent" which we don't need,
Correct, using /var/tmp is wrong and a mistake.
IMO, advising people to modify their code to u
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:42 AM, David Howells wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a problem building my cross-compiler gcc package as it requires a
> cross-compiler binutils package to be built first.
>
> I managed to build the rawhide build with:
>
> fedpkg chain-build --target=rawhide cross-b
[I'm sorry for getting repetitive here, but I'm responding to several
people concurrently in order to minimize volume]
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> That discussion is happening right now. You're welcome to join in.
That wasn't my understanding, my understanding is th
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> You can only chain-build on rawhide, you want a buildroot override.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/BuildRootOverrides
Ah, yes. I remember now. Can fedpkg and koji chain-build --help texts be
updated to note this?
David
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
On 05/31/2012 11:47 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
That discussion is happening right now. You're welcome to join in.
That wasn't my understanding, my understanding is that this is a done
deal and not up for discussion. I'm happy to learn ot
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:58 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> You can only chain-build on rawhide, you want a buildroot override.
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/BuildRootOverrides
>
> Ah, yes. I remember now. Can fedpkg and koji chain-build --help texts be
> updated
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 05/31/2012 12:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
If you're looking for a mantra to recite ad infinitum, that's a fine one, but
right now we're looking for ideas that are helpful and productive instead.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
On 05/31/2012 12:06 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
>
> If you're looking for a mantra to recite ad infinitum, that's a fine one, but
> right now we're looking for ideas that are helpful and productive
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
>
> SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
That is just untrue. SecureBoot can be used to make sure you only run
the software you intended to run,
On 05/31/2012 12:06 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
>
> If you're looking for a mantra to recite ad infinitum, that's a fine
> one, but
> right now we're looking for ideas that are helpful and producti
On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
>>
>> SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
> That is just untrue. SecureBoot can be used to make su
commit e3c352a2af422526ff4ff265cca1754ef66a105b
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Thu May 31 18:17:45 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-Test-Simple.spec | 12 +++-
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Simple.spec b/perl-Test-Simple.spec
inde
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
>>>
>>> SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
On 05/31/2012 12:18 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
Secure
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> This is a monopolistic attack disguised as a security effort.
> The highly restrictive technological approach that has been taken needs to be
> challenged in the courts.
> I'd rather see Microsoft users have to attach a dongle to their system
Basil Mohamed Gohar (basilgo...@librevideo.org) said:
> > Remove Microsoft's keys, problem solved.
>
> Ah, yes, but then you also won't be able to run Fedora, under the
> currently proposed solution. Oops! See how slick the slope is?
If you're dumb enough to 1) remove all the keys without putti
On 05/31/2012 12:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
This is a monopolistic attack disguised as a security effort.
The argument that it's a security effort is bolstered in many vendors eyes
by the existence of attacks in the wild which Secure Boot would prevent.
As a practical matter, I'm going to go on
On 05/31/2012 12:21 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Basil Mohamed Gohar (basilgo...@librevideo.org) said:
>>> Remove Microsoft's keys, problem solved.
>> Ah, yes, but then you also won't be able to run Fedora, under the
>> currently proposed solution. Oops! See how slick the slope is?
> If you're d
On 05/31/2012 12:22 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> This is a monopolistic attack disguised as a security effort.
>
> The argument that it's a security effort is bolstered in many vendors eyes
> by the existence of attacks in the wild which Secure Boot would
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> That is just untrue. SecureBoot can be used to make sure you only run
>> the software you intended to run, which is impossib
commit 91f56f05d56fa73f7eb38ac2f6d88f2a640866d7
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Thu May 31 18:45:56 2012 +0200
Fix dependencies
perl-version.spec | 18 --
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-version.spec b/perl-version.spec
index f8d3c30..893
On 05/31/2012 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
That is just untrue
On 05/31/2012 12:46 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
SecureBoot is not
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> The argument that it's a security effort is bolstered in many vendors eyes
> by the existence of attacks in the wild which Secure Boot would prevent.
I'm not aware of any attack _objectives_ (as compared to methods)
which this would prevent,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend on
> the OS being booted:
>
> SecureBoot should only be Default:ON for Microsoft OS's and any other OS's
> that want to deal with that
>
> and should be Defaul
On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend on
>> the OS being booted:
>>
>> SecureBoot should only be Default:ON for Microsoft OS's and any other OS's
>>
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:46:22AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> that. You have to either get your build shipped in updates (stable)
> or create a buildroot override in order to get that build into the
> buildroots.
Because this case rise on packages which has Requires dependencies a
buildroot o
On 05/31/2012 12:53 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend
>>> on the OS being booted:
>>>
>>> SecureBoot should only be Defa
Am 30.05.2012 10:52, schrieb drago01:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Jared K. Smith
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>> Am 29.05.2012 22:45, schrieb Roberto Ragusa:
>>> i think i have to mention taht VT-d is active in the BIOS and
>>> i was wondering th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2012 05:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno
>> wrote:
>>> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
>>>
>>>
>>>
SecureBoot is not
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:46:22AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> that. You have to either get your build shipped in updates (stable)
> or create a buildroot override in order to get that build into the
> buildroots.
Because this case rise on packages which has Requires dependencies a
buildroot o
On 05/31/2012 12:57 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:53 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend
on th
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 30.05.2012 10:52, schrieb drago01:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Jared K. Smith
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Reindl Harald
>>> wrote:
Am 29.05.2012 22:45, schrieb Roberto Ragusa:
i think i have to
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> >> The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend
> >> on the OS being booted:
> >>
> >> SecureB
On 05/31/2012 01:03 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 12:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depe
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
What effect on CD or USB boot images does this have? Will Live images on
fp.o be required to be signed to be useful to the general public with a
Dell/HP machine that will most certainly have this feature enabled (and
possibly not allo
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
> Maybe it checks the BIOS to determine whether some SecureBoot flag is set.
While it pains me to argue with someone on my side— you're incorrect.
The compromised system would just intercept an
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:07:13PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:03 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > How does the Microsoft OS know that it's being invoked in an
> > unauthorised manner?
> >
>
> Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
>
> Maybe it checks the BIOS to determ
On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
>> Maybe it checks the BIOS to determine whether some SecureBoot flag is set.
> While it pains me to argue with someone on my side— you're incor
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
>>> Maybe it checks the BIOS to determine whether some SecureBoot flag is set.
>> While
On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Could be any of a thousand ways to implement this.
Maybe it checks the BIOS to determi
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Could be any of a thousand ways
About a week ago I did a scratch build of one of my packages that includes
and it built successfully.
Today I did another scratch build and it broke with:
...
Making all in src
CC fuse-helpers.lo
CC fuse-resolve.lo
CC fuse-bridge.lo
CC misc.lo
In file included from fuse
A scratch build on koji if that wasn't apparent.
- Original Message -
From: "Kaleb Keithley"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:38:32 PM
Subject: sys/sysctl.h and bits/sysctl.h in rawhide/f18?
About a week ago I did a scratch build of one of
On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gerry Ren
Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth said:
> What effect on CD or USB boot images does this have? Will Live images on
> fp.o be required to be signed to be useful to the general public with a
> Dell/HP machine that will most certainly have this feature enabled (and
> possibly not allowed to disab
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:42:30PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> This game of cat and mouse with the blackhats is not going to end until we
> have some type of read-only partitions where
> known good code resides.
>
> And the user must hit a hardware button to enable read-write to change
> anything
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:46:15PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth said:
> > What effect on CD or USB boot images does this have? Will Live images on
> > fp.o be required to be signed to be useful to the general public with a
> > Dell/HP machine that will most cer
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:10 PM, Gregory Maxw
On 05/31/2012 01:47 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Platforms implementing secure boot will require cryptographically signed
> firmware updates, so the only way an attacker
> will be able to modify your system is by having physical access to the flash.
Well, at least that part is good.
--
devel m
On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno w
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:19 PM, Jon Ciesla w
Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> About a week ago I did a scratch build of one of my packages that
> includes and it built successfully.
>
> Today I did another scratch build and it broke with:
>
> ...
> Making all in src
> CC fuse-helpers.lo
> CC fuse-resolve.lo
> CC fuse-bridge.lo
> C
On 05/31/2012 12:21 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Basil Mohamed Gohar (basilgo...@librevideo.org) said:
Remove Microsoft's keys, problem solved.
Ah, yes, but then you also won't be able to run Fedora, under the
currently proposed solution. Oops! See how slick the slope is?
If you're dumb enou
On 5/31/12 12:20 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:18 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Remove Microsoft's keys, problem solved.
Mirek
Ah, yes, but then you also won't be able to run Fedora, under the
currently proposed solution. Oops! See how slick the slope is?
False. Quoting
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:02 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 30.05.2012 10:52, schrieb drago01:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Jared K. Smith
>>> wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> Am 29.
On 05/31/2012 12:15 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:06 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:04 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction.
If you're looking for a mantra to recite ad infinitum, that's a fine
one, but
right now we're loo
Kaleb Keithley (kkeit...@redhat.com) said:
>
> About a week ago I did a scratch build of one of my packages that includes
> and it built successfully.
>
> Today I did another scratch build and it broke with:
>
> ...
> Making all in src
> CC fuse-helpers.lo
> CC fuse-resolve.lo
>
On 05/31/2012 01:57 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Reno w
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said: >
> It's perhaps just as troubling that there are people involved in this
> non-public decision who apparently have such a limited understanding
> of free software that they were unable to understand the point I made
> explicitly in my message (and more e
On 05/31/2012 12:42 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Well, Fedora will enjoy a different security benefit by removing the
user-space ability to manipulate DMA, even for users that don't have
SecureBoot-capable hardware.
Our current plan is actually to only disable these methods if Secure Boot is
enabl
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:57 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:34 PM, Jon Ciesla wr
On 05/31/2012 12:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Now if you're suggesting Fedora should ship another version of the shimloader
that's signed with a common Fedora key... sure, why not, that could be nice.
Of course since we have to /install/ a bootloader, for this to be effective
it needs to be the
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
