Re: apt-cacher in main

2007-11-16 Thread Mathias Gug
Hi Oliver, On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:15:34PM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: > searching for package proxy solutions in apt-cache reveals: > > apt-proxy - Debian archive proxy and partial mirror builder I've used apt-proxy for some time, but switch to apt-cacher. apt-proxy would hang quiet often w

Re: apt-cacher in main

2007-11-16 Thread Oliver Grawert
hi, Am Donnerstag, den 15.11.2007, 22:59 + schrieb Matt Zimmerman: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:05:01PM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: > > in edubuntu we face the fact that governments and schools start rolling > > out really huge deployments in the near future (see macedonia with a > > total of

Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs?

2007-11-16 Thread Martin Olsson
Dear kernel hackers, This is a message from below 0x7FFF. Please look at this bug (it's not a new concept but still): https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/163185 I'm no expert but I'd guess the "complete freeze" part of the bug has to do with the kernel, no? It would be nice to have a sys

Re: apt-cacher in main + apt-zeroconf

2007-11-16 Thread Kevin Fries
There is another problem with apt-zeroconf... it relies on Avahi. Avahi has lots of environments that it does not work in. In my office, the machines are not seeing each other. When we had a meeting at the Google (Sketchup) offices in Boulder, Avahi did not work correctly their either. I don't

Re: apt-cacher in main + apt-zeroconf

2007-11-16 Thread Sam Tygier
Fabian Rodriguez wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > Sam Tygier wrote: >> it looks like they have got the security side covered. >> >> "Now, one might think this could potentially pose a security threat >> as everyone can offer and distribute debs without any >> auth

Re: Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs?

2007-11-16 Thread Martin Olsson
Sorry about that, I checked the "has security impact" checkbox and that marked it as private by default. This is a very well known problem though so keeping secret certainly does not make sense. I have manually removed the "private" flag now. The content of the bug report was as follows: --

Re: Is it possible to give the user the option to cancel forkbombs?

2007-11-16 Thread Dane Mutters
I thought you might find this helpful. (I brought this issue up with the Slackware folks once, and they told me basically this.) http://wiki.craz1.homelinux.com/index.php/Linux:Security:Forkbomb I was also told that the ability to spawn such rampant forks/processes is controlled by default in De