On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:35:27PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2022 21:34:33 +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue
> wrote:
> >Considering many have replied, I'll stick to that one:
> >Marc Haber wrote on 08/03/2022 at
> >17:49:04+0100:
> >> (3)
> >> #625758
> >> --disabled-password just doe
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1212 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 193 (new: 1)
Total number of packages reques
Hi Lucas,
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are 629 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0. That's 1.9% of
> bookworm packages.
many thanks for filing these bugs and even more thanks for filing them with
severity wishlist! I've just read one bug repo
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 12:09:14 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other automation
> where you sometimes have native Debian revisions.
>
> * you are producing a package where you have distinct upstream and
> debian branches, and you cannot control th
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:37:49PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >- leading digits sometimes causes programs to parse a 'username' as an
> > 'user id' instead; you can see some of this here:
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237
> > I know I've seen more instances of this over the year
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christian Britz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de,
cbr...@t-online.de
* Package name: cutefish-statusbar
Version : 0.8-git1
Upstream Author : supp...@cutefishos.com
* URL : https://gith
Hi!
[ But, this one again… ]
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 18:17:15 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Why on earth *would* you mess around using Debian revisions on a
> native-format package, though? IMHO it's pointless and is just going
> to confuse people. Unless you can explain a good reason to need this
Marc Haber wrote on 10/03/2022 at 21:35:27+0100:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2022 21:34:33 +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue
> wrote:
>>Considering many have replied, I'll stick to that one:
>>Marc Haber wrote on 08/03/2022 at
>>17:49:04+0100:
>>> (3)
>>> #625758
>>> --disabled-password just does not set a pa
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>...
> For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> bugs using the following template:
>
> -->8
> Subject: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
>
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 20:24, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> have you considered a more declarative approach as provided by
> systemd-sysusers (8)?
>
> I'm a fan of less manual maintainer scripts code and maybe
> systemd-sysusers is an answer to that, especially given that we split
> out th
On 10/03/22 at 23:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >...
> > For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> > bugs using the following template:
> >
> > -->8
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 21:18:30 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> I have re-read Simon's words and still have the interpretation that
> unlocking an account that has been created with -disabled-login will
> allow login without password, making the account completely open.
That's what I thought would happ
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 06:37:58AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:04:38 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> >On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 17:29 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> >> Those are actually unrelated--the big reason for the more permissive
> >> umask is to allow people to seamlessly work wit
On 10/03/22 at 21:49 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi provides the list of
> packages for each category. The packages count is currently:
> (1.1): 53 packages
> (1.2): 424 packages
> (2): 149 packages
Actually it's:
(1.1): 60 packages
(1.2): 431 packages
(
Hi,
Based on the discussion, I propose the following:
Let's split the 626 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0 into
three categories (1.1), (1.2), (2):
(1) packages with are very unlikely to use a VCS-based workflow (not
maintained by Debian X; not using a VCS; or referring to a broken
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:01:36 +, Seth Arnold
wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 05:49:04PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> (2)
>> #774046 #520037
>> Which special characters should we allow for account names?
>
>Please consider the leading character separately from the rest of the
>characters:
>
>- le
On Wed, 09 Mar 2022 21:34:33 +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue
wrote:
>Considering many have replied, I'll stick to that one:
>Marc Haber wrote on 08/03/2022 at 17:49:04+0100:
>> (3)
>> #625758
>> --disabled-password just does not set a password for the newly created
>> account (resulting in '*' in sha
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 17:29:01 -0500, Michael Stone
wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 12:29:43PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>I don't think it makes sense to move toward 0700 home directories and to
>>loosen the umask for usergroups.
>
>Those are actually unrelated--the big reason for the more permissiv
Hi Marc,
have you considered a more declarative approach as provided by
systemd-sysusers (8)?
I'm a fan of less manual maintainer scripts code and maybe
systemd-sysusers is an answer to that, especially given that we split
out the systemd-sysusers binary into a standalone binary which should
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:57:13 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:00:22PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 18:40:11 +, Simon McVittie
>> >--disabled-login: the new account has an empty password but is "locked";
>> >so password authentication will fail, but "
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 06:28:57PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 10 March 2022 11:34 -05, Michael Stone:
It was always configurable, but was enabled out of the box in hamm...
My system was installed on Potato if I remember correctly (or maybe
Woody, but definitely not older than Potato). But
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Guilherme de Paula Xavier Segundo
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian...@lists.debian.org,
guilherme@gmail.com
* Package name: golang-github-cjoudrey-gluaurl
Version : 0.0~git20161028.31cbb9b
Upstream Author : Christian J
On 3/9/22 23:47, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:35:52 -0600, Richard Laager
wrote:
If the admin can change the default DIR_MODE that applies to system user
home directories, then any postinst script doing `adduser --system`
needs to also explicitly chmod its home directory if it need
> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre writes:
Steve> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> 1. Why is 1.0-without-diff not always worse than 3.0 (native) ?
>>
>> 1.0 native is sometimes better than 3.0 (native) because
>> dpkg-source refuses to build a 3.0 native package with a Debian
>
Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>1. Why is 1.0-without-diff not always worse than 3.0 (native) ?
>
>1.0 native is sometimes better than 3.0 (native) because dpkg-source
>refuses to build a 3.0 native package with a Debian revision in its
>version number.
>
>This prohibition exists solely because of a doctrina
❦ 10 March 2022 11:34 -05, Michael Stone:
On systems that don't use usergroups for all/some users, doesn't this
change make all files writable by other users by default? That would
seem like a very unsecure change on upgrades (or as a default).
>>>
>>> AFAIK systems that don't use
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 05:06:32PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 10 March 2022 11:21 +01, Philip Hands:
On systems that don't use usergroups for all/some users, doesn't this
change make all files writable by other users by default? That would
seem like a very unsecure change on upgrades (or a
❦ 10 March 2022 11:21 +01, Philip Hands:
>> On systems that don't use usergroups for all/some users, doesn't this
>> change make all files writable by other users by default? That would
>> seem like a very unsecure change on upgrades (or as a default).
>
> AFAIK systems that don't use usergroups
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:19:56 +0100, Harald Dunkel
wrote:
>This is another trap: /etc/login.defs seems to define some ranges for
>"system" uids and gids. They are commented out by default, nevertheless
>they imply some configurability. Are changes in login.defs supposed to
>be respected by all pack
hi,
as last year there will be a Debian Reunion Hamburg 2022 event taking place
at the same location as previous years, from May 23rd until the 30th. See
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEvents/de/2021/DebianReunionHamburg for much
more information!
This is just a preliminary announcement to get the
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:00:22PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 18:40:11 +, Simon McVittie
> >--disabled-login: the new account has an empty password but is "locked";
> >so password authentication will fail, but "unlocking" the account will
> >result in login being accepted wi
On 2022-03-09 21:00:20, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:10:04 +0100, Harald Dunkel
Related question: How are naming collisions between local entries and
the entries in a network directory service supposed to be handled?
Something like
passwd: files sss
in /etc/nsswitch.conf is
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 11:21 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> However, I suspect that something is a bit broken about this anyway,
> since I just tested and get a umask of 0022 when logging in via ssh
> to a system with USERGROUPS_ENAB 'yes'.
I changed UMASK to 077 in /etc/login.defs and can confirm th
Ansgar writes:
> On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 12:29 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > > > >
>> Take a look at https://salsa.debian.org/vorlon/pam/-/merge_requests/3
>>
>> According to the history of that patch, we have some old consensus to
>> move toward usergroups and a default umask of 0002 (except fo
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 09:28:24 +, Simon McVittie
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 06:37:58 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Are we using ACLs [by] Default already in other places of the Debian
>> system?
>
>For user-facing purposes I don't think so (although they're available to
>anyone who wants to se
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 06:37:58 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Are we using ACLs [by] Default already in other places of the Debian
> system?
For user-facing purposes I don't think so (although they're available to
anyone who wants to set them), but they're how the udev/logind "uaccess"
mechanism (the
36 matches
Mail list logo
