Re: A patch (was: sh -c processes???)
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Kyle Donaldson wrote: > [snip] > Thanks for this ideas. (And sorry for the delayed reply.) > > Obeying quotes and escapes is a good idea, but I think expanding > wildcards > and the other features are superfluous (at least as a blackbox menu > entry). If someone wants this further support, they should just use "sh > -c" (or my [shexec]) to have the shell do the extra work. > The reason that wildards and such are supported is that this is basically unmodified code from a shell I wrote, except for nsh_exec() itself. Of course, I could have it look for certain characters (|, $, *, ?, etc) and have it load 'sh -c' instead of processing. If someone tells me exactly what it should do, I can do an implementation. (I think, even with a bb patch...) --gile -- "It's only when I lose myself in someone else that I find myself" - DM
Re: A patch (was: sh -c processes???)
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Kyle Donaldson wrote: > I've attached a C source file with a function (nsh_exec() - no shell exec) > which will take a string, split it (obeying quotes and expanding wildcards > when possible, I might add), and then fork() and execute it. > > Also here's a patch on main.cc and which changes main() to grab the > environment and copy it to an external variable 'envlist'. This must be > applied for nsh_exec() to work. Thanks for this ideas. (And sorry for the delayed reply.) Obeying quotes and escapes is a good idea, but I think expanding wildcards and the other features are superfluous (at least as a blackbox menu entry). If someone wants this further support, they should just use "sh -c" (or my [shexec]) to have the shell do the extra work. Jeremy C. Reed BSD software, documentation, resources, news... http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jeff Raven wrote: >D) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [cexec]; the first > would just use "sh", the second "sh -c". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". For the most part this would make things > work like they used to before the exec code was changed. >E) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [sexec]; the first > using "sh -c" and the second using "sh". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". Umm... As far as I can tell (and I just tested it) 'sh ' will NOT work, unless is a shell script. 'sh -c ' tells sh "execute this command without entering interactive mode". 'sh ' says "execute this shell script using the shell". Also, was my execute "semi-patch" totally ignored? (http://www.mail-archive.com/blackbox@trolltech.com/msg02459.html) I haven't had the time to do a correct patch, because I've been working on some new software that has been a total PITA to write/debug/smash with sledgehammer. --gile -- "Anyone can be a winner, unless there's a second entry."
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > But what about not using any /bin/sh? > > > > I prefer F) > > > > F) Provide two menu items, say [shexec] and [exec]; the first > >using "sh -c" and the second not using any "sh". rootCommand > >would still use "sh -c". (If users want old behaviour, they would need > >to change their [exec] menu entries to [shexec].) > > > > (I am sure you saw it, but I did provide a patch that works for me the > > past week.) > > > > this would definately be appreciated. http://www.mail-archive.com/blackbox@trolltech.com/msg02458.html http://www.reedmedia.net/misc/blackbox/patches/shexec-patch Jeremy C. Reed BSD software, documentation, resources, news... http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
> > But what about not using any /bin/sh? > > I prefer F) > > F) Provide two menu items, say [shexec] and [exec]; the first >using "sh -c" and the second not using any "sh". rootCommand >would still use "sh -c". (If users want old behaviour, they would need >to change their [exec] menu entries to [shexec].) > > (I am sure you saw it, but I did provide a patch that works for me the > past week.) > this would definately be appreciated.
malicious rootCommand (was Re: sh -c answers thanks!)
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jeff Raven wrote: >C) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu > items, but leave it in for rootCommands. > My impression is that people mostly use compound commands in > their rootCommands, in which case I would favor C... (also, I > haven't checked if cexec or sexec would cause conflicts in the > parsing code). On a related note, in the end of February there was some discussion about malicious style files. And in the beginning of March, I provided a patch for adding new rootCommand options so users can prevent malicious style files. Did you see this? Jeremy C. Reed BSD software, documentation, resources, news... http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jeff Raven wrote: >A) None. Just encourage people to use exec or & in their > menu items. (Or force everyone to use bash :) No. Using "exec" or "&" still starts the initial /bin/sh. Even though it eventually closes this is a waste. >D) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [cexec]; the first > would just use "sh", the second "sh -c". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". For the most part this would make things > work like they used to before the exec code was changed. >E) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [sexec]; the first > using "sh -c" and the second using "sh". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". But what about not using any /bin/sh? I prefer F) F) Provide two menu items, say [shexec] and [exec]; the first using "sh -c" and the second not using any "sh". rootCommand would still use "sh -c". (If users want old behaviour, they would need to change their [exec] menu entries to [shexec].) (I am sure you saw it, but I did provide a patch that works for me the past week.) Jeremy C. Reed BSD software, documentation, resources, news... http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
Re: pseudo transparency
I compiled wterm in my machine and I have it with blackbox, al works equal than gnome for examble (in window maker it have a menu, like eterm, but I don't use it) Kheb On Wed, 30 May 2001 16:46:25 +0200 (MSZ), vester said: > > A great alternative is aterm. Transparency, shading, tinting, pixmaps > > on the background, and not as hungry as Eterm. > > # apt-get install aterm =) > > thanks! > > -vester > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
Hi! >A) None. Just encourage people to use exec or & in their > menu items. (Or force everyone to use bash :) >B) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu > items and rootCommands. >C) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu > items, but leave it in for rootCommands. >D) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [cexec]; the first > would just use "sh", the second "sh -c". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". For the most part this would make things > work like they used to before the exec code was changed. >E) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [sexec]; the first > using "sh -c" and the second using "sh". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". I vote for A: maximum functionality with minimum work. My second choice goes to D and E: preserve the functionality. And me too, I would love keyboard-navigable menus. Regards, Edgar. -- Edgar Bonet Tel :+1 607 255-9349 LASSP -- Cornell University Fax :+1 607 255-6428 Clark Hall e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ithaca, NY 14853, USA web :www.edgar-bonet.org
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
Yes... I agree! (all I want is to acess menus whith the keyboard and 'walk arround' them with keys...) Pepe On 30-May-2001 Markus Ottenbacher wrote: > > If that is true, 'A' is the most lightweight and easiest solution; > just a little of docu needs to be added in the default menu-file to > make people aware of this thing. > > So, my vote is 'A'. No unnecessary code in the wm, no loss of speed > or memory, developers can focus on other interesting fields (like the > 'make menus keyboard-navigable'-discussion) > > gm > > > > --- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- João Pedro Franco e Silva Wireless Development Team Quadriga, SA Av. Gen. Norton de Matos, 59A - 1C Miraflores, 1495-148 Algés Tel. 214135670, Fax 214135678
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
On 30 May 2001, at 8:14, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On 30-May-2001 Jason vanRijn Kasper wrote: > > umm, and why can't we leave it as is? > > > > 1219 ?S 0:00 /bin/sh -c /usr/bin/X11/xfmail > 1220 ?S 0:11 /usr/bin/X11/xfmail > 1269 ?S 0:00 /bin/sh -c rxvt > 1270 ?S 0:00 rxvt > > Having two processes per process is annoying. Well, as I understood the discussion, this problem can be fixed by solution 'A': >A) None. Just encourage people to use exec or & in their > menu items. If that is true, 'A' is the most lightweight and easiest solution; just a little of docu needs to be added in the default menu-file to make people aware of this thing. So, my vote is 'A'. No unnecessary code in the wm, no loss of speed or memory, developers can focus on other interesting fields (like the 'make menus keyboard-navigable'-discussion) gm --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
In the gothic chambers of the underworld on Wed 30 May 2001 at 10:45 -0400, Jeff Raven muttered darkly: >A) None. Just encourage people to use exec or & in their > menu items. (Or force everyone to use bash :) >B) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu > items and rootCommands. >C) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu > items, but leave it in for rootCommands. >D) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [cexec]; the first > would just use "sh", the second "sh -c". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". For the most part this would make things > work like they used to before the exec code was changed. >E) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [sexec]; the first > using "sh -c" and the second using "sh". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". > > My impression is that people mostly use compound commands in > their rootCommands, in which case I would favor C... i use compound menu commands. i think they're helpful for things like setting the working directory and redirecting output. so i vote for d. t. -- 4.0k -rw-rw-r--1 zork zork 17 Apr 4 17:38 .signature
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
On 30-May-2001 Jason vanRijn Kasper wrote: > umm, and why can't we leave it as is? > 1219 ?S 0:00 /bin/sh -c /usr/bin/X11/xfmail 1220 ?S 0:11 /usr/bin/X11/xfmail 1269 ?S 0:00 /bin/sh -c rxvt 1270 ?S 0:00 rxvt Having two processes per process is annoying.
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
umm, and why can't we leave it as is?
On Wed, 30 May 2001 10:01:22 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >C) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu
> > items, but leave it in for rootCommands.
> >D) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [cexec]; the first
> > would just use "sh", the second "sh -c". rootCommand would
> > still use "sh -c". For the most part this would make things
> > work like they used to before the exec code was changed.
>
> either of these, weighted towards C.
>
>
--
>%--%<
Jason Kasper (vanRijn)
Systems Engineer
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
VORFA
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
>C) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu > items, but leave it in for rootCommands. >D) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [cexec]; the first > would just use "sh", the second "sh -c". rootCommand would > still use "sh -c". For the most part this would make things > work like they used to before the exec code was changed. either of these, weighted towards C.
Re: Keys...
Joao Pedro Franco e Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm using blackbox for some time now, and before I used WindowMaker. > Soon I stopped using the mouse, and I try to do almost everything with the > keys. I came the same way... > Unfortunably, blackbox's menus (main menu and window menu) can't be acessed by > keys... I even mailed the bbkeys guys about this, but they say this is a > limitation of blackbox, although with the right patch it could be done using > bbkeys. > > Is anything being done in this area!? If not, I could do some developing, but > would need some tips to start... I asked the same question some time ago and also was told that it's within BB - I'd also very much would like to see this feature. If anybody has some more detailed hints, as to where in the code the changes would need to be made, I'd be happy to give it a try when I find the time. -Jan (who just realizes, he sent a "me, too!" mail - shame!) -- Jan Schaumann http://www.netmeister.org
Keys...
My turn... ;-) I've already put this question, but never had an answer... I'm using blackbox for some time now, and before I used WindowMaker. Soon I stopped using the mouse, and I try to do almost everything with the keys. Unfortunably, blackbox's menus (main menu and window menu) can't be acessed by keys... I even mailed the bbkeys guys about this, but they say this is a limitation of blackbox, although with the right patch it could be done using bbkeys. Is anything being done in this area!? If not, I could do some developing, but would need some tips to start... TIA Pepe -- João Pedro Franco e Silva Wireless Development Team Quadriga, SA Av. Gen. Norton de Matos, 59A - 1C Miraflores, 1495-148 Algés Tel. 214135670, Fax 214135678
Re: pseudo transparency
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 04:42:33PM +0200, vester wrote: > > how do i configure bsetbg to use esetroot? i *think* that it currently > uses xv (does that make sense?) at least i had to install the xv package > in order to get bsetbg to work, thus my assumption. > Check in your home directory for a file called .bsetbgrc. When it was first run, bsetbg created this file and searched your system for suitable programs. It chooses one program to be used, but includes data in the file to set up most others. Mine contains ### xli FULL="xli -fillscreen -onroot -quiet" TILE="xli -onroot -quiet" CENTER="xli -center -onroot quiet" DEFAULT="xli -center -onroot quiet" ### display # FULL="display -geometry 800x600 -window root" # TILE="display -window root" # CENTER="display -backdrop -window root" # DEFAULT="display -backdrop -window root" ### wmsetbg # FULL="wmsetbg -s -S" # TILE="wmsetbg -t" # CENTER="wmsetbg -e" # DEFAULT="wmsetbg -e" If I were to put #'s in front of the lines under xli, and remove the #'s from the lines under wmsetbg, bsetbg would use wmsetbg to set the background images (and eterm should work). If you've installed other background image programs since you first ran bsetbg, you can just remove .bsetbgrc and run bsetbg again to recreate the file, and then edit it by hand to use the program you want. Jeff Raven
Re: pseudo transparency
This is what I have in the configuration file of the theme that I'm using... rootCommand:Esetroot -s /home/jpfs/.blackbox/Backgrounds/chaos.tif Hope it helps Pepe On 30-May-2001 vester wrote: > > how do i configure bsetbg to use esetroot? i *think* that it currently > uses xv (does that make sense?) at least i had to install the xv package > in order to get bsetbg to work, thus my assumption. > > anyway, thanks for your help! > > best, > > vester -- João Pedro Franco e Silva Wireless Development Team Quadriga, SA Av. Gen. Norton de Matos, 59A - 1C Miraflores, 1495-148 Algés Tel. 214135670, Fax 214135678
Re: pseudo transparency
vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A great alternative is aterm. Transparency, shading, tinting, pixmaps > > on the background, and not as hungry as Eterm. > > # apt-get install aterm =) also, try aterm and, much lighter: rxvt -Jan (who's back to plain xterm after years of fuzzing around with pseudo-transparency) -- Jan Schaumann http://www.netmeister.org
Re: pseudo transparency
> A great alternative is aterm. Transparency, shading, tinting, pixmaps > on the background, and not as hungry as Eterm. # apt-get install aterm =) thanks! -vester
Re: sh -c answers thanks!
Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late, but I was away getting hitched. I'll be heading off in a day or so for a two week vacation, but I was curious what solution folks would prefer : A) None. Just encourage people to use exec or & in their menu items. (Or force everyone to use bash :) B) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu items and rootCommands. C) Eliminate the ability to run compound commands in menu items, but leave it in for rootCommands. D) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [cexec]; the first would just use "sh", the second "sh -c". rootCommand would still use "sh -c". For the most part this would make things work like they used to before the exec code was changed. E) Provide two menu items, say [exec] and [sexec]; the first using "sh -c" and the second using "sh". rootCommand would still use "sh -c". My impression is that people mostly use compound commands in their rootCommands, in which case I would favor C... (also, I haven't checked if cexec or sexec would cause conflicts in the parsing code). Jeff Raven
Re: pseudo transparency
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jeff Raven wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:34:06PM +0100, Joao Pedro Franco e Silva wrote: > > On 30-May-2001 vester wrote: > > > one thing i've been trying to do is to have pseudo-transparent > > > terminals...i am on debian woody/sid and i've got the newest version of > > > the blackbox package installed and i cannot get eterm 0.9.1 to be > > > transparent. transparency works fine under enlightenment but in blackbox > > > it always displays a background image and toggle transparency in the menu > > > has no effect... > > > > > > > I'm no expert with BlackBox, but I'm using aterm (transparent), and I think > > this as something to do with the theme's "rootCommand"... > > Indeed, that is probably the problem. eterm watches for changes to > certain properties of the root window to occur; these properties > are specific to eterm and perhaps a few other programs, so many > background setting programs don't support them. esetroot (from > enlightenment) and wmsetbg (from Window Maker) do, but blackbox's > bsetroot doesn't. > > If the themes that you use have rootCommands using bsetbg to set > background _images_ (as opposed to blackbox-style textures), the > problem is easy to fix -- you just need to configure bsetbg to > use esetroot or wmsetbg instead of whatever it's using now. > > Last I used it, aterm seemed to work just fine with blackbox, > though. Recent rxvt's can be compiled to do transparency too, > but aterm offers additional things like tinting. > how do i configure bsetbg to use esetroot? i *think* that it currently uses xv (does that make sense?) at least i had to install the xv package in order to get bsetbg to work, thus my assumption. anyway, thanks for your help! best, vester
Re: pseudo transparency
vester: > basically i wanted to ask which terminal is best fit for blackbox and > how i can get it to be transparent This has nothing to do with blackbox. There's a number of terminals that you could use, which support transparency. If you have plenty of resources, Eterm might be worth having a look at. It's great eyecandy and full of features, but unfortunately it' quite resource hungry as well, which conflicts with the philosophy behind blackbox. A great alternative is aterm. Transparency, shading, tinting, pixmaps on the background, and not as hungry as Eterm. Whatever terminal you use, blackbox won't care. Alphons -- A. van Wervenhttp://www.liacs.nl/~avwerven Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, The Netherlands
Re: pseudo transparency
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:34:06PM +0100, Joao Pedro Franco e Silva wrote: > On 30-May-2001 vester wrote: > > one thing i've been trying to do is to have pseudo-transparent > > terminals...i am on debian woody/sid and i've got the newest version of > > the blackbox package installed and i cannot get eterm 0.9.1 to be > > transparent. transparency works fine under enlightenment but in blackbox > > it always displays a background image and toggle transparency in the menu > > has no effect... > > > > I'm no expert with BlackBox, but I'm using aterm (transparent), and I think > this as something to do with the theme's "rootCommand"... Indeed, that is probably the problem. eterm watches for changes to certain properties of the root window to occur; these properties are specific to eterm and perhaps a few other programs, so many background setting programs don't support them. esetroot (from enlightenment) and wmsetbg (from Window Maker) do, but blackbox's bsetroot doesn't. If the themes that you use have rootCommands using bsetbg to set background _images_ (as opposed to blackbox-style textures), the problem is easy to fix -- you just need to configure bsetbg to use esetroot or wmsetbg instead of whatever it's using now. Last I used it, aterm seemed to work just fine with blackbox, though. Recent rxvt's can be compiled to do transparency too, but aterm offers additional things like tinting. Jeff Raven
RE: pseudo transparency
Hi.. I'm no expert with BlackBox, but I'm using aterm (transparent), and I think this as something to do with the theme's "rootCommand"... Pepe On 30-May-2001 vester wrote: > hi! i'm still a blackbox newbie and i hope this is the right forum to ask > a few basic questions... > > one thing i've been trying to do is to have pseudo-transparent > terminals...i am on debian woody/sid and i've got the newest version of > the blackbox package installed and i cannot get eterm 0.9.1 to be > transparent. transparency works fine under enlightenment but in blackbox > it always displays a background image and toggle transparency in the menu > has no effect... > > basically i wanted to ask which terminal is best fit for blackbox and how > i can get it to be transparent (and whether or not i need blackbox patches > to do that)? > > thanks! > > vester -- João Pedro Franco e Silva Wireless Development Team Quadriga, SA Av. Gen. Norton de Matos, 59A - 1C Miraflores, 1495-148 Algés Tel. 214135670, Fax 214135678
pseudo transparency
hi! i'm still a blackbox newbie and i hope this is the right forum to ask a few basic questions... one thing i've been trying to do is to have pseudo-transparent terminals...i am on debian woody/sid and i've got the newest version of the blackbox package installed and i cannot get eterm 0.9.1 to be transparent. transparency works fine under enlightenment but in blackbox it always displays a background image and toggle transparency in the menu has no effect... basically i wanted to ask which terminal is best fit for blackbox and how i can get it to be transparent (and whether or not i need blackbox patches to do that)? thanks! vester
Re:
it's the b-day invitation this year from my grandma ;P /lenix -- www: http://lenix.web.ag fon: +49 - 173 - 80 99 196 No, CTRL-ALT-DEL is not the proper way to end a programm. (RFC 1882) __ Sie surfen im Internet statt im Meer? Selbst schuld! Auf zum Strand: http://lastminute.de/?PP=1-0-100-105-1
Re:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > can anyone translate that last message maybe? (was that actually text) > > confused, > xOr > - > you have no chance to survive make your time What exactly _do_ you think that is in this message? NOTE: before deciding, take a look at the RCPT ads ... -- tinus
