On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 07:32:57 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
>
>> "[...] distcc sends the complete preprocessed source code across the
>> network for each job."
>
> Hmm, OK, but that would just speedup the actual compilation. Granted,
> that's the largest chunk, but
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:52:43 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
>> - in the meantime, tmpreaper cleans up /tmp/bob
>
> Just FWIW, but a multiuser system that is running tmpreaper is insecure.
> The bugs apparantly cannot be fixed, but I can write up an exploit if you
> pay me
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:27:04 -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
> I'm not trying to start a flamewar. You asked "Is there *any* reason why
> defaulting TMPDIR=/tmp/ is inferior to TMPDIR=/tmp?", I
> answered, and now you're being hostile and dismissive.
That is a reasonable question to ask. I
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:33:25 -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 09:16:44AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> > Not necessarily. With the current /tmp system, the only directory
>> > entries that are created are the ones that are actually needed at any
>> > given time. If
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:11:04 -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 07:33:25PM -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, I'd rather see a better set of tools for programmers to use
>> to create temporary files. tmpfile(3) is horribly inadequade for a lot
>> of thi
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:56:50 -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 02:50:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> Please don't. Is there *any* reason why defaulting
>> TMPDIR=/tmp/ is inferior to TMPDIR=/tmp?
>
> Systems with large numbers of users (and normally use, for exa
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:58:33 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Does the PAM module *create* /tmp/ if it's not there?
Actually it is /tmp/users/ at the moment, and yes, it creates both
levels securely.
--
Martin
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:14:09 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>> At the least I would like to see Debian prompt for this at installation
>> much as it does for shadow passwords. Ideally it would be on by
>> default.
>
> I'm all for this idea.
Thanks
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:26:58 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig
>
> | On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:09:28PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> | > There is already a PAM modules, libpam-tmpdir which automatically sets
> | > this up on login by creating a per-user dir
There has been about one temporary file vulnerability in Debian per
month since the start of the year.
Given the number of relatively unaudited programs that create
temporary files and the possible complexity of tempfile
vulnerabilities, I am not sure that all the problems will be found and
fixe
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:43:24 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:46:32 +1000, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:53:14 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I was intentionally using moderate language because (a) I don't
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:53:14 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:59:59 +1000, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> For example, at least two people called Hans a troll. An upstream
>> author expressing concern about the way their code is pac
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:45 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Hans Reiser wrote:
>> Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for
>> its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to
>> prominently crediting those who have contributed.
I'm gla
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:09:39 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:19:17AM -0400, Michael Tindal wrote:
>> I do not understand your accusations here. No one stated what you
>> said, and no one has delibaretly attempted to upset Hans. Quite the
>> contrary, actually. I have see
On 22 Apr 2003, Michael Tindal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Authors have a moral right (and a legal one in some places) not to
> > have their work mutilated.
>
> I do not consider removing 20-something lines of output from a
> program whose purpose is to create a filesystem mutilating it. By
>
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:36 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 12:25:39PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
>> "We don't care what the author wants, we have the legal right to
>> change what we like" is not a good message to send. Even if you don&#
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 22:45:59 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 06:54:42AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
>> It is really a question of, do you respect the authors?
>
> Who do you respect, Hans? Many Debian Developers are also Free
> Software authors. How much respect are you sh
On 16 Apr 2002, Lasse Karkkainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgot to cc this to the list.. The message is attached.
Here's another clue, for free: when somebody specifically replies to
you rather to the list, and points that out in the message body, they
probably had a reason. Going back on to
On 13 Apr 2002, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 10:19:27PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > The big problem with rproxy is it's implemented in perl (perl: crypto for
There might be some other unrelated program called rproxy that's in
Perl, but the one I wrote certain
On 11 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for all your hard work on rsync. I think it is a great tool.
> I'm especially excited to hear it is used in Intermezzo. I like your
> rsync/debian web page.
I'm glad you like them.[0]
> I feel you aren't fair to diff
On 12 Apr 2002, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've changed my opinion on this since we last talked, partly because
> of taking over rsync itself,
... what I meant, but people other than jgg probably didn't know, is
that I was looking at installing rproxy and I&
On 12 Apr 2002, Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nobody8835 25.7 0.3 22120 1740 ?RN Apr10 525:24 rsync --daemon
> nobody 22896 5.0 0.3 22828 1992 ?SN Apr11 21:20 rsync --daemon
> nobody3907 7.3 0.5 22336 2820 ?RN Apr11 15:30 rsync --daemon
On 12 Apr 2002, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think some more details is required regarding rproxy.
I've added a lot more detail about rproxy, and my understanding of
Goswin's proposal. Let me know if they're unclear.
> Why is nobody actively developing it?
I'm not sure what kind of
There seems to be a thread about rsync and Debian packages every
couple of months. I've written up a document which tries to cover all
of the questions and debates. It's pretty informal, but hopefully
will be useful.
http://rsync.samba.org/rsync-and-debian/
I'd appreciate comments.
--
Marti
24 matches
Mail list logo
