2009/7/16 David Zeuthen <[email protected]>: > Just checked, you only get org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Error.Cancelled if > you cancel the check yourself. If the user dismisses the dialog OR if > fails to authenticate (the gnome authentication agent only allows three > tries) you are just told the user is not authorized. I remember changing > the behavior to this some time ago.
Right, I was sort-of expecting the user clicking cancel to make the GCancallable cancel, if you see what I mean, but I understood why you've done it this way. >> I'm getting a few bugs where the polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1 >> process isn't running, and we can't show anything helpful to the user >> in this case. > > I'm not sure exactly what you think should be different in how polkit > works. Any concrete suggestions? No, not really, sorry. > FWIW, I don't think the mechanism should care about whether an > authentication agent is available, whether the user dismissed the dialog > or just failed to authenticate or other _implementation_ details. In > fact, the system may be using an Authority Implementation that doesn't > even allow obtaining authorization through authentication. The point is > really that you can't make a lot of assumptions about how the Authority > implementation works. Right, makes sense. >> Maybe polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1 should >> register a well known name on the session bus, and gnome-packagekit >> client tools should check for this service. I'm not sure. Ideas >> welcome. > > Don't think this is a good idea - it would also break things like > fast-user switching. I just don't see why the PackageKit mechanism or > the GNOME PackageKit client tools need to care about whether an > authentication agent exists at all... Sure, I've not done this, I just wanted to sound out the idea. I think I'll leave things well alone for now. Thanks, Richard. _______________________________________________ polkit-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/polkit-devel
