Ethan Quach wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> be_mount.c:
> ---------------
> 1556-1563 - is this chunk really necessary?  The printed debug message 
> at 1564

I wouldn't say necessary but I would say better since the whole reason for 
doing this is to give the user a nice message.

> already has a strerror(err) which will say something like "permission 
> denied"
> 
> 1567 - you want to set ret = errno_to_be_err(err)   instead of err
> 

righto.

Thanks
Tim

> 
> thanks,
> -ethan
> 
> 
> Tim Knitter wrote:
>> Dave and all,
>>
>> I fixed all the other cases I could find where we should print out an 
>> insufficient privileges message. I successfully tested again on bld 98 
>> as an unprivileged user and the messages are displayed properly.
>>
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~tsk/3734/
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>>
>> Tim Knitter wrote:
>>  
>>> Dave Miner wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Tim Knitter wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could Ethan and/or Evan or anyone else for that matter review this 
>>>>> snap2 project fix which is against the snap_upgrade WS? I'm sending 
>>>>> this out as a separate review since this is a bug found during the 
>>>>> system test phase of the project and it isn't covered in the main 
>>>>> webrev (3686)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~tsk/3734/
>>>>> This was tested on opensolaris bld 88. The test revealed the 
>>>>> following output when the user was non-privaleged:
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> I hope you meant 98 there...
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> Yes. A little dyslexia there.
>>>
>>>    
>>>>> os% beadm destroy be2
>>>>> Are you sure you want to destroy be2? This action cannot be 
>>>>> undone(y/[n]): y
>>>>> Unable to destroy be2.
>>>>> You don't have enough permissions to execute this command.
>>>>> Either use 'pfexec' to execute the command or become superuser.
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> Is this really the only case in which we should be printing a 
>>>> permissions error?  If not, can we try to fix at least some of the 
>>>> others while you're at it?
>>>>       
>>> Yeah there are probably other places that could use this message. 
>>> Thus the reason to keep it rather generic. I'll search and replace 
>>> where it is needed.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> For i18n purposes, contractions are discouraged.  Also, it's not 
>>>> permissions, but privileges which are lacking.  Perhaps something like:
>>>>       
>>> Right. I came to that conclusion after reading this again after Joe 
>>> replied.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Unable to destroy be2 due to insufficient privileges.  Either use 
>>>> pfexec to execute the command, or become superuser.
>>>>       
>>> Yeah that is better.
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Dave
>>>>       
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>     
>> _______________________________________________
>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>   

Reply via email to