Re: [sabayon] On the topic of lockdown
- From: Rob Bradford <rob robster org uk>
- To: Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>
- Cc: sabayon-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [sabayon] On the topic of lockdown
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:16:31 +0200
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 23:40 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> Le jeudi 26 octobre 2006, �0:18, Rob Bradford a �it :
> > Perhaps the right solution is to make the checkboxes control both the
> > setting of the key and its mandatory status. This could then be used for
> > lockdown of things for which no lockdown key exists by just setting it
> > to mandatory.
> > This would mean Pessulus could only be run as root or under Sabayon. In
> > the case of running Pessulus as root and settings made by the user
> > before that point will be replaced by the root setting at the point it
> > was made mandatory.
> > Does this make sense?
> If you run pessulus as root, you will see a small lock beside the
> checkbox. The checkbox sets the key to the value and the lock controls
> its mandatory status.
> Isn't this enough for doing what you're proposing?
Once again I think I should blame my head-cold for not making very much
Ultimately I want to be able to support the lockdown of things for which
no explicit lockdown key exits (because maintainers don't want to add
them). This can be achieved by marking the key(s)/value(s) as mandatory,
something that can only be done under Sabayon (or Pessulus as root).
For those meta lockdown keys that already exist I would want the user
interface to not expose both the lock and checkbox but just the
checkbox. Setting this would thus set the key value *and* make it
Does that make more sense?
Rob Bradford <rob robster org uk>
] [Thread Prev