On Wed, 13.02.08 16:12, Les Mikesell (lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: >> As we get more familiar with making HAL/CK policy edits, these sorts >> of questions will lose meaning. HAL/CK policies can and will be >> customized away from the default set of rules written with a shared >> desktop in mind. There's no technical reason that a music server >> daemon package for example couldn't drop in new policy that changed >> the behavior here. We just have to understand how to write that >> policy file and then agree that's the sort of thing we want server >> packages to do on install. > > I'm not convinced that anyone can deduce the behavior I want from the > packages that are installed. Or even that I'd know for sure myself ahead > of time in all cases but I have a hard time imagining a case where I'd want > access cut off to an existing, running session just because someone else > might want to check their email on a different account and they do it from > a VT instead of Xnest. Is it possible to make the rules easy to manage > locally - and can you have a first-served wins rule? We had exactly the same discussion already on this ML. Please consult the archives, instead of decreasing the signal-to-noise ration of this ml even further. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
