Here's the one big feature I'd like to have in Fedora for my current
needs : The possibility to have everything "just work" when more than
one user is logged into X (from gdm).
The need : Me and my girlfriend share the same PC at home for various
things, and we both have our own users in order to keep settings
separate (mainly useful for WM settings, program preferences, UI
language). We don't have the habit of logging out since we never
know which one of us will be the next to use the computer, so... the
easiest is to have two gdm screens and let us both log in, especially
since gdm allows that to be trivially configured!
The problem : On FC4, changing /etc/security/console.perms* files in
order to have group write access on various devices, for a group we
both belonged to, worked out quite well. Sound was then OK, CDs/DVDs
too... quite alright.
On FC5, things got more complicated and I still wasn't able to get
everything working as on FC4. For USB drives for instance, now that
hotplug and udev seem to handle that, they get mounted, but although
both users can see them, only one has write access to it, and it
seems to be randomly one or the other. I wasn't even able to find how to
So what I'd like would be for development to try and "clean up" the way
console permissions are handled since it seems to be going in all
directions currently, simplify everything and take into account at
least these two common cases :
- Some devices should always be writable by a given group. Useful for
instance when logging in through ssh to remotely play music, which
requires write access to the sound devices.
- Some devices should always be available to all users logged in
locally (the case I described above).
Is this possible, would it be hard to do?
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 5.89 (Rawhide) - Linux kernel 2.6.16-1.2208_FC6
Load : 2.08 2.03 1.82
Ive just joined this mailing list and I am in intending to get involved
with the testing effort within the Feodra project. Just by way of
introduction I am based in Belfast Ireland and I work as a software
tester within a large software house working predominately on web-site
testing with a chunk of interoperability and linkage testing thrown in.
My question is probably way "off topic" but none the less I would be
interested in hearing peoples comments.
I tend to run older hardware because
2. This older kit provides all the functionality I need at home as Im
not big into gaming or heavy multimedia or the like
3. An element of "save the earth".
There was an article in the paper yesterday that claims that MS Vista 's
full range of tools would be available to less than 5% of all PC's in
Britian (presumably this would extrapolate world wide) I was then
reading over the thread on PAE and Zen and it occured to me that perhaps
the same issue might rise with Fedora?
I do fully realise that and OS needs to keep abreast of hardware
developments but Im wondering if this has to be to the detriment of the
folks like me who tend to run behind the times.
Perhaps a solution would be to ask ANACONDA to identify hardware
resources available on a box and then provide a suggested build of
Fedora to be intstalled that will provide only the functionality the
hardware is capable of running sucessfully?
Since a few days i have problems with autofs. In my log file i find the
when i try "ls /net/192.168.2.1/home"
May 27 23:40:10 xpc automount: lookup_mount: >> /usr/sbin/showmount: can't get address for /net/192.168.2.1/home
May 27 23:40:10 xpc automount: lookup_mount: lookup(program): lookup for /net/192.168.2.1/home failed
and when i try "ls /net/gate/home"
May 27 23:44:45 xpc automount: lookup_mount: >> /usr/sbin/showmount: can't get address for /net/gate/home
May 27 23:44:45 xpc automount: lookup_mount: lookup(program): lookup for /net/gate/home failed
showmount outputs the following;
# showmount gate -e
Export list for gate:
Any ideas ?
A crazy license, no documentation, no web site, no mailing list, no CVS,
no real presence besides a RPM, a bugzilla component, and the occasional
mention on the SystemTap list.
Why is this being used instead of the other (more sensibly licensed? I
can't tell, I have no idea what the elfutils license means.) libelfs and
libdwarfs that are available?
And where does one go to get bugs fixed, because I don't think bugzilla
is it. (Although, I think this may be a bugzilla privileges issue.)
Nicholas Miell <nmiell(a)comcast.net>