On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 06:11, John Chittum wrote:
>
> Could we add "Keeping the last run"
Yes please! Can we add keeping the last successful run, as well as the
last current run? If the current run fails, its nice to be able to
compare to a previous successful run.
>
> That way you delete, but
I think we should be pointing it back to paste.ubuntu.com, because our
existing users expect it will go to a distro owned pastebin, and we
should remain consistent.
I am also all for keeping user data on IS controlled assets, we don't
exactly know who controls dpaste, and if they parse dmesg or ce
user is what makes Ubuntu special and
easy to use, and I wouldn't want to place a breaking change like that on our
community.
Thanks,
Matthew Ruffell
Sustaining Engineering
[1]
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.html#dmesg-restrict
--
ubuntu-devel mailing
n Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:40:36PM +1200, Matthew Ruffell wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> I am proposing that we enable the CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT [1] feature
>> by
>> default for Groovy onward.
>
> Seems like the discussion on this has stalled. I checked with the
Hello!
I am again following up on my proposal to enable CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT
on Groovy onward with debdiffs necessary to implement the feature.
Since there have been no replies, I am assuming that no one has any objections
to adding this feature. The kernel team and security team are +
Hi Chris,
[..]
> Do you happen to know if there was a similar proposal discussed in
> Debian?
I don't believe this has been discussed in Debian. The only bugs I found was
#570358 and #867747 which are for /var/log/dmesg only. Additionally, I found
https://wiki.debian.org/NewInStretch, which menti
Hi Chris, Steve,
>> I'm sure you have seen Ansgar's reply here:
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/08/msg00121.html
>
>> > That grants additional rights to the `adm` group that it did not have
>> > before, for example to clear the dmesg buffer:
>> >
>> > $ dmesg --clear
>>
Hi everyone.
I was testing Jammy and happened to notice that unattended-upgrades Depends on
ubuntu-server-minimal, and when removing unattended-upgrades,
ubuntu-server-minimal is removed along with it:
$ sudo apt remove unattended-upgrades
...
The following packages will be REMOVED:
ubuntu-serv
Hi Steve,
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:36 PM Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >It's not necessary to remove the unattended-upgrades package in order to
> >achieve this. unattended-upgrades is configurable, and it's sufficient to
> >set 'APT::Periodic::Unattended-Upgrade "0";' in
> >/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto
Hi all,
I'm looking for a bit of advice about landing a new feature in util-linux, as
things have gotten a little complicated, and with feature freeze looming, a
second opinion would be much appreciated.
util-linux 2.37.2 in Jammy has introduced some new behaviour for lsblk and
similar tools whic
he fundamental-ness of util-linux I think it's better to be safe.
>
> Cheers,
> mwh
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 02:43, Paride Legovini wrote:
>>
>> Bryce Harrington wrote on 18/02/2022:
>> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 01:00:07PM +1300, Matthew Ruffell wrote:
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
