Re: dbus - Was: A thread that shouldn't be mentioned anymore
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:34:36 -0700
> Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
>> >> DBus isn't a problem per se, it just can cause issues, when implemented
>> >> without thinking about the needs of all users?
>> >
>> > Right but it's actually much worse than that. Take mozilla firefox even
>> > which may or may not have been changed due to me bringing it up on the
>> > dev-security list. Without dbus in a chroot it would die, the reason
>> > was handling it's text configuration files, which is obviously
>> > rediculously pointless and I assume with some confidence, actually quite
>> > dumb.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? I have never seen anything dbus related in
>> any version of Mozilla or Firefox, aside from one extension that never
>> really when anywhere.
>
> It does as you can see from the output when running it in a chroot
> and for atleast one release it would die.
>
> (firefox:1515): GConf-WARNING **: Client failed to connect to the D-BUS
> daemon: Failed to connect to socket /tmp/dbus-jEHTNI62oh: Connection
> refused
>
> Fontconfig error: Cannot load default config file
Odd. Just looked at Dbus with SeaMonkey and Firefox running, nothing
from them. Aurora channel, stock mozilla.org versions.
Cheers,
Kelly
Reply to: