On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 21:24 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 01:09 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 17:56 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > > > > Is this a rh-legal type problem (in which case I understand) or > > > rh-desktop policy (which can be re-evaluated)? Personally I've > > > explained the 99-fixed-disk thing to at least 4 or 5 people new to > > > linux, and they all thought it was a crazy decision. No offence > > > intended. > > > > Any feedback on this? Thanks. > > That's a bit pushy. Yes sorry, that's part of who I am :-) > Well, it's certainly not a rh-legal thing and as I'm > the package maintainer it ends up being my decision (though I guess the > board can overrule my decisions)... and I don't think this change is > justified so I'm just going to say no, sorry. Sure, no worries. I just wanted some sort of conclusion to this thread. This might be worth putting as a FAQ on fedoraproject or something IMO. > FWIW, what really needs to happen is something a lot more flexible and > more fine grained than pam_console so different Fedora spins can ship > with different defaults, e.g. a desktop oriented spin (or livecd or > whatever) will ship with this bit "on"; server / corp desktop oriented > spins can ship with this bit "off". And even when the bit is "off" what > yuou want is to explain to the user that this operation is locked down > and give them an option to e.g. auth (as super user) to perform the > operation anyway. Sure, seems sane. > Sounds familiar? That's because I've wrote about all that about more > than a year ago > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2006-January/004377.html > > (ignore most of the implementation details; this is afterall more > than a year old.) > > but have been both busy with frying other fish plus I wasn't happy with > the overall architecture of the code I ended up with - just too damn > complex / abstrat plus it requires a whole new system-wide daemon. It > works though; SUSE is already shipping PolicyKit AFAIK. > > I have some plans on how to greatly simplify PolicyKit (now that we have > ConsoleKit and D-Bus system bus activation is on the horizon) but > haven't had time to put these thoughts into email form just yet. > Eventually. Cheers, Richard. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
