[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#81397: [authorization] fails silently for normal users, cannot start server



> This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk
> about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug
> report to the list.

Well, sorry but now you're in MY non-permanent (YET) shitlist for violating
netiquette, and I'll have to acknowledge that Branden Was Right (tm) about
you.

Hint: next time, ASK FOR PERMISSION FIRST before you do a public posting of
private email. Geez. You'd have gotten it, but it is a matter of principle
to ask first.

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > You've already gotten into Branden's permanent shitlist. Please be more
> > reserved on ANYTHING you do that might even remotely involve his packages,
> > ok? We don't need him going psycothic again.

Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: "Branden does not like
to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't
poke him, he'll bite back and we get to watch the fallout."

> What is this supposed to mean? There are many users here suffering from this
> problem since this is a multi-user system and none of them have the time
> to learn the peculiarities of x. They, and I, just want to use this stuff
> and I moved the system to unstable because it seemed we needed some of
> the bug fixes...

It means your X *may* be configured not to allow anyone but root to execute
the wrapper. Check the damn Xwrapper.config file. I even said that over
private mail to be nicer and not bother this list with yet another redudant
reply...

The Xrapper.config issue has been documented in a number of bug reports
(search the BTS), and probably many -user and -devel posts (search the list
archives, mind the sometimes quirky search engine).

> of a particular developer. On the contrary, every developer should be required
> to deal with every bug report in an objective manner. [*] Which I think is the

Most developers (if not all of them) deal with bug reports in an objective
manner, or don't deal with them at all (because they're MIA or are very
short on time).

> Okay, i'll check that. Hadn't found that myself. Thanks. I'm downgrading X
> now, but I might need this information.

FYI I'm running up-to-date sid X packages here, and they seem to work just
fine.

> > This was discussed in d-user, d-devel and numerous bug reports to the point
> > that Branden would go "Overfiend" on *anyone* asking it again.
> 
> I've never seen this mentioned, nor is it written down anywhere and I don't
> think that mailing search stuff really works... And I wouldn't think I'd be

That mailing search stuff has some weird problems, yes. As for not being
written down anywhere, the postinst asks you about it. I think there is a
manpage for Xwrappers.config, but it's not installed in my system.

> able to find it with this much info (i can't start x as a user). Point
> me to an FAQ, and I will understand it then. I thought this might be some

Hmm... why didn't you look at what X asks during configure phase, as well as
the files in /etc/X11?  That's usually a very good first check before
posting a question.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Attachment: pgpEfy32U5OAo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: