Hi David! David Zeuthen [2006-01-12 11:30 -0500]: > On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 17:09 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > > More importantly, I'd say, you miss the connection with the hardware, > > > e.g. the hal device object. Today we have an extremely nice interface by > > > which you can say "this piece of hardware has this functionality; you > > > can invoke these methods" and any relatively newcomer can go ahead and > > > send a patch to the HAL list to do this, see e.g. > > > > > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309067#c3 > > > > I see. But this kind of circumventing user privileges (that is > > traditionally defined in terms of group memberships and such) > > Pft this is not Debian - distributions like e.g. Fedora always defined > this in terms of whether the user was at the console or not. In my view > it's a lot more sane. No, you don't have to agree. As long as there is no kernel support for this stuff, pam_console only proves that an user was logged in locally at least once, but that's pretty uninteresting. That's the reason why we don't use it. However, that's a completely different story. > We are careful about reviewing things. I know, I'm familiar with the process. I meant 'easy' in the architectural, not procedural sense. > > > You know, I don't mind getting the split into HAL if it means that you > > > guys can start shipping a non-crippled HAL. > > > > We ship a non-dangerous hal, not a crippled one. > > Comments like this really pisses me off you know. Then don't start talking at this level in the first place. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but unqualified comments like yours don't exactly lift my mood either. Cheers, Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature