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

[John Galt]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:

SL>On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
SL>
SL>> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
SL>> > There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to 
you
SL>> > without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
SL>> > too many people are missing it.
SL>
SL>> Do you think this is also what prevented display managers (xdm, gdm, wings
SL>> are the ones that I tries) to function correctly?
SL>
SL>Branden diagnosed this bug correctly.  A bug in the X server *cannot* cause
SL>xdm/gdm authentication to fail, unless perhaps Branden has started diverting
SL>files at random.  (I'll let you check this if you like.  Personally, I have
SL>greater confidence in his integrity as a developer.)  The display manager
SL>starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
SL>has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
SL>failure you reported came from the display manager and PAM, /not/ from the X
SL>server.
SL>
SL>Is it possible you missed a debconf question that controls authentication for
SL>display managers when you upgraded?  Yes, but it certainly wasn't in the X
SL>packages.

It's in one of the xserver packages...-common, I think.

SL>Steve Langasek
SL>postmodern programmer
SL>
SL>
SL>

-- 
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Nouns in the second declension (Re: Bug#81397: [authorization] fails silently for normal users, cannot start server)

[Stephen Zander]

> "exa" == exa   writes:
exa> bug report?  BTW, I'm not a professional ignorami whatever
exa> that means, dear literary pioneer of the list.

Correct.  You are (or would be) a professional ignoramus.  Ignorami is
the plural form, just like hippopotami & radii are the plural forms of
hippopotamus and radius.

The appellation suggests one who pursues ignorance as a full-time
activity rather than a hobby or occasional pursuit.

HTH

-- 
Stephen

"A duck!"

John Laws (was Re: Bug#81397: [authorization] fails silently for normal users, cannot start server)

[Stephen Zander]

> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Hamish> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry
Hamish> Parker wrote:
>> ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws

Hamish> Err, yeah.. takes one to know one?

Stop it.  You're both making me home-sick :)

-- 
Stephen

"A duck!"

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

[Jason Henry Parker]

Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> > You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something,
> > without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it
> > (read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again and understand it). When
> > asked about specific info, you take it as an attack on your
> > personality and spam debian-devel. Then you don't even give all the
> > answers you were asked to give.
> And I have made substantial bug reports in the past, so I can't be said
> to have a consistent history of false reports.

That is not the claim that Martin made.

> And some of the assessments of bug reports are truly personal insults.
> For instance xfree86 maintainer's reassignment of the possibly unresolved
> bug to gdm is full of offense.

Oh, you've simply got to be joking.  You just agreed it was probably
not the X server's fault!

> I have developed a great liking for bug reports somehow.

*shudder*

jason
-- 
``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws

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

[Eray Ozkural \(exa\)]

Hi Martin,

please cc to me

Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> 
> > I have developed a great liking for bug reports somehow.
> 
> Then you just need to develope some skill for a) analysing bugs and
> writing useful reports and b) not going crazy when developers ask
> further question if they don't have a cristal ball handy.

When I have more time on my hands, the bug reports become more comprehensive.

Excuse me for being paranoid about bug reports, but some of the bug reports
are really being overlooked.

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Martin Bialasinski]

[ No need to Cc: me, I do read debian-devel ]

* Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Well, I will cc to debian-devel only when there is an affirmed
> conflict with the developer about the bug report, OK?

>> Your behaviour on this bugreport is a deja-vu of your behaviour on
>> #80544.

> I think 80544 is a pretty valid bug.

It is a valid bug. Your initial report was useless and was lacking
information about the cause of the bug. So I asked you about specific
further details on the environment to find out when and why this
happens.

You took this as a personal attack and Cc: debian-devel where also
nobody could understand or figure out from your mails what the report
was about. And you denied me the info I was asking about.

And you call this "affirmed conflict with the developer about the bug
report"? Oh wait, you called it "your assessment of the bug is totally
wrong."

>> You are more than annoying, and I am sick of it.

> Because I'm picky about bugs?

No. Because your recent reports don't come close to the ones you sent
in even a half year ago. Your "bash is fscked up" report looks like
from some bloody beginner, not from a up-coming developer. You didn't
even try to find out what the cause was. You didn't even check the
bash manpage to see which startup files are processed. You didn't even
give such basic information like the shell used. Or at least you
didn't tell anything about what you did to find out about the cause.

It was a of "*whine*, it doesn't work" kind. You can do better than
that. Basically, you left anyone with guesswork. Your report was
useless. Take a another look at it.

And THEN you bitch around when people are annoyed about this.

Your breakage of privacy and netiquette is is another thing.

> Have you been able to replicate the bug 

I was able to work out by guessing and trying a szenario where this
bug happens and found the reason for it.

> and report upstream as I have suggested?

It was forwarded a day before your mail.

Everything is recorded in the BTS.

> I have developed a great liking for bug reports somehow.

Then you just need to develope some skill for a) analysing bugs and
writing useful reports and b) not going crazy when developers ask
further question if they don't have a cristal ball handy.

Martin

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

[Eray Ozkural \(exa\)]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> Ah, so you have a time machine which you used to tell your earlier self
> that there was going to be trouble from me over bug 81397?
> 

No comments. :)

> You CC'ed your *initial report* to debian-devel and debian-x, before I had
> anything at all to say on the subject.

Yes, I did. At any rate, you didn't have to publicly insult me.

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:34:31PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know why you think your personal bug reports are so important
> > that they demand the attention of not only the package maintainer, but
> > *also* everyone subscribed to d-d, but please stop.
> 
> Only when I think it is important so that it requires the attention of more
> people or when there is a conflict with the maintainer. Taking into account
> the hostile and childish attitude of the maintainer, it is a very appropriate
> action I guess.

Ah, so you have a time machine which you used to tell your earlier self
that there was going to be trouble from me over bug 81397?

You CC'ed your *initial report* to debian-devel and debian-x, before I had
anything at all to say on the subject.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson |  One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux|  engineering.  "Supernatural" is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  null word.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Robert Heinlein


pgpougBIN2OYf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[exa]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:57:08PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Debian does not try to regulate the behaviour of its maintainers,
> except where the quality of the distribution itself is involved.
> What are your contributions to Debian Eray?

Non-regulation is a false claim. Maintainers are regulated in many ways;
including being confronted with bozos like the xfree86 maintainer.

What makes you think I haven't made any contributions?

orion:science$ ls ~/devel/debian/ | grep -e .*deb
insight_5.0-2_i386.deb
overkill-data_0.13-1_all.deb
overkill_0.13-1_i386.deb
sather-browser_1.2.1-2_i386.deb
sather-doc_1.2.1-2_all.deb
sather-lwp_1.2.1-2_i386.deb
sather-mode_1.2.1-2_all.deb
sather_1.2.1-2_i386.deb
sourcenav-doc_4.5.2-1_all.deb
sourcenav_4.5.2-1_i386.deb
tix41-dev_4.1.0.7-5_i386.deb
tix41_4.1.0.7-5_i386.deb
orion:science$ 

For now these are the concrete contributions. Plus a lot of bug reports, etc.

If the slow debian application process finalizes for me I'll be able to
do a lot more. [waiting for DAM approval, whenever that is supposed to
happen :(]

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[exa]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something,
> without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it
> (read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again and understand it). When
> asked about specific info, you take it as an attack on your
> personality and spam debian-devel. Then you don't even give all the
> answers you were asked to give.
> 

Well, I will cc to debian-devel only when there is an affirmed conflict
with the developer about the bug report, OK?

And I have made substantial bug reports in the past, so I can't be said
to have a consistent history of false reports.

And some of the assessments of bug reports are truly personal insults.
For instance xfree86 maintainer's reassignment of the possibly unresolved
bug to gdm is full of offense.

> Your behaviour on this bugreport is a deja-vu of your behaviour on
> #80544.
> 

I think 80544 is a pretty valid bug. Have you been able to replicate
the bug and report upstream as I have suggested?

> You are more than annoying, and I am sick of it.
> 

Because I'm picky about bugs? I think we all need to be a bit picky
about bugs. I can understand why it might be desirable for a developer
to dismiss a bug; it takes less effort to do so. But then, only
valid dismissals should be allowed.

> If you want your glory peer review, subscribe to debian-bugs-dist and
> read every mail the BTS sends. I am sure your excelent bug analysis
> skills are greatly appreciated.
> 

Well, I guess I should.

I have developed a great liking for bug reports somehow.

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:40:03AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > > If you call your insults to another contributor to debian "deserved rant",
> > > then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
> > > any social skills.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, WHO is misinterpeting their status?
> 
> I think the xfree86 maintainer is misinterpreting his status.
> As a prospective developer, I'd be greatly surprised if anybody
> told me that developers have the right to swear publicly in an outburst
> of adolescent frenzy.

Debian does not try to regulate the behaviour of its maintainers,
except where the quality of the distribution itself is involved.
What are your contributions to Debian Eray?

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> ``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws

Err, yeah.. takes one to know one?


Hamish, glad we don't have him down here.
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

[Martin Bialasinski]

* "Eray Ozkural (exa)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Users here are not at all interested in the psychological state of a
> particular developer. On the contrary, every developer should be
> required to deal with every bug report in an objective manner.

> Inappropriate dismissal or incorrect evaluation of bug reports could
> be dealt with if bug reports were subject to peer review. I think
> that review by wider audience may be instrumental in that...

Let me tell you frankly:

You behaviour wrt bugs is more than lacking. You report something,
without making a report that has enough relevant info to deal with it
(read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again and understand it). When
asked about specific info, you take it as an attack on your
personality and spam debian-devel. Then you don't even give all the
answers you were asked to give.

Your behaviour on this bugreport is a deja-vu of your behaviour on
#80544.

You are more than annoying, and I am sick of it.

If you want your glory peer review, subscribe to debian-bugs-dist and
read every mail the BTS sends. I am sure your excelent bug analysis
skills are greatly appreciated.

But leave debian-devel out of this.

Martin

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

[exa]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Hmm. Well, I know about that. The display managers start all right. The
> > problem occurs when I login. I'd tried xdm, wings and gdm. How come all
> > of them failed then?
> 
> Why does that mean the problem is with the X server?
> 

Okay. Since I've downgraded X now and the behavior has gone, I'd think it
was due to some component in X. May not be the server of course.

If the same problem recurs, I will report it. Until then, I close it because
I don't think it's a problem with gdm. I use the same gdm and users can login 
now.

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Jason Henry Parker]

Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:03:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The display manager
> > starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
> > has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
> > failure you reported came from the display manager and PAM, /not/ from the X
> > server.
> Hmm. Well, I know about that. The display managers start all right. The
> problem occurs when I login. I'd tried xdm, wings and gdm. How come all
> of them failed then?

Why does that mean the problem is with the X server?

jason
-- 
``Banks *are* bastards.'' -- John Laws

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:03:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The display manager
> starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
> has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
> failure you reported came from the display manager and PAM, /not/ from the X
> server.
>

Hmm. Well, I know about that. The display managers start all right. The
problem occurs when I login. I'd tried xdm, wings and gdm. How come all
of them failed then?

> Is it possible you missed a debconf question that controls authentication for
> display managers when you upgraded?  Yes, but it certainly wasn't in the X
> packages.

?? I'm not sure, but when I downgraded to the version in sid, everything got
back to normal.

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:

> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
> > without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
> > too many people are missing it.

> Do you think this is also what prevented display managers (xdm, gdm, wings
> are the ones that I tries) to function correctly?

Branden diagnosed this bug correctly.  A bug in the X server *cannot* cause
xdm/gdm authentication to fail, unless perhaps Branden has started diverting
files at random.  (I'll let you check this if you like.  Personally, I have
greater confidence in his integrity as a developer.)  The display manager
starts the X server, not the other way around, which means that the X server
has no control over the display manager's behavior; and the authentication
failure you reported came from the display manager and PAM, /not/ from the X
server.

Is it possible you missed a debconf question that controls authentication for
display managers when you upgraded?  Yes, but it certainly wasn't in the X
packages.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

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

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Despite the inappropriate manner in which this is being reported (and 
> > despite 
> > having nothing to do with the bug that was actually filed), it's true that 
> > we
> > won't want people upgrading from potato to woody to be caught unawares by 
> > this
> > new feature.  Branden, perhaps the XFree4 server package should check if the
> > previously-installed version was a 3.3 server, and offer to set up the
> > Xwrapper.config file appropriately?

> There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
> without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
> too many people are missing it.

So I gathered from later on in the thread.  I'm afraid I don't have a box
running unstable + X yet, so was unaware, sorry for the ignorant suggestion.

I may have a look at implementing Branden's counter-suggestion, to actually
parse out existing XFree 3.3 conf files and importing the config.  I have a
feeling that would be more trouble than it's worth, tho. :/

Regards,
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

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

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:33:46AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
> > without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
> > too many people are missing it.
> 
> Do you think this is also what prevented display managers (xdm, gdm, wings
> are the ones that I tries) to function correctly?

I don't know. xdm is working fine on my system, as is startx,
as I configured xfree86 to allow any console user to start X,
when debconf asked me the question.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

[Eray Ozkural \(exa\)]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > If you call your insults to another contributor to debian "deserved rant",
> > then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
> > any social skills.
> 
> I'm sorry, WHO is misinterpeting their status?

I think the xfree86 maintainer is misinterpreting his status.
As a prospective developer, I'd be greatly surprised if anybody
told me that developers have the right to swear publicly in an outburst
of adolescent frenzy.

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Eray Ozkural \(exa\)]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
> without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
> too many people are missing it.

Do you think this is also what prevented display managers (xdm, gdm, wings
are the ones that I tries) to function correctly?

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Eray Ozkural \(exa\)]

"Oliver M . Bolzer" wrote:
> 
> You are still not getting it, arn`t you? It is not about the content at atll,
> is about quoting PRIVATE mail in PUBLIC places without asking FIRST. Sorry
> for shouting, but this has to be said.
> 

Yes, I am getting it. But I'd always thought that content did matter. [*]

> Legally, you might be allowed to (fair-use) quote private mail sent to you
> as one end of the communication pipe, but we are talking netiquette
> here. Really, it is not yours to decide wheter it is wrong or not to make that
> mail publicly available. It is only the authors choice. He might have whatever
> reasons to not want the content to be seen by the public.

All right. I publicly apologize to Henrique for not asking him first.

Ignore what I have quoted from him and consider only what I have written:

---

Users here are not at all interested in the psychological state
of a particular developer. On the contrary, every developer should be required
to deal with every bug report in an objective manner.

Inappropriate dismissal or incorrect evaluation of bug reports could
be dealt with if bug reports were subject to peer review. I think that
review by wider audience may be instrumental in that...

-

Thanks,


[*] When we talk just about code, objectively, I wouldn't hesitate to
post it to public places.

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:32:23AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.
> 
> I'm not addressing you Hamish. In all of our exchanges, there have
> always been a dose of respect.

If outside comment is unwelcome, why post on debian-devel?

> When a person is arrogant but a genius otherwise, you can overlook
> his ignorance of social norms from time to time. But this person
> is not that talented. And he is one of the most arrogant and irresponsible
> young computer-oriented persons I have ever encountered. His actions
> are simply not tolerable.

I'm sure you can appreciate that the maintainer of a complex set of
packages like XFree86 will get asked a lot of questions about
configuration. I think anyone would get frustrated at being asked
the same user-level questions over and over again about a package
in unstable, quite reasonably if the answers are obtainable elsewhere.

It's reasonable to experience some problems when running unstable -- 
as the name suggests. Anyone using it should expect to be able to
fix problems like these themselves, or know where to look for answers.

To make things worse, the whole thing has been on debian-devel
where it does not belong. If there is really a bug, it belongs
in the BTS and related lists only.

I don't think you know Branden well enough to say if he is talented
or not. I don't. If you have worked on the XFree86 packages with
him you might be in a position to comment.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

[Eray Ozkural \(exa\)]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:48:58PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > Such primitive reaction of yours is not likely to arouse interest
> > in prospective contributors; to join debian and to work with people
> > like you.
> 
> Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.

I'm not addressing you Hamish. In all of our exchanges, there have
always been a dose of respect.

Not with the xfree86 maintainer, though.

In every exchange, he is acting like a raving lunatic. He's swearing
like that in a public list. When a future developer sees that, what
will he think? Will he be happy that he will be able to encounter
some psychotic script guy?

I'm talking only of the xfree86 maintainer.

When a person is arrogant but a genius otherwise, you can overlook
his ignorance of social norms from time to time. But this person
is not that talented. And he is one of the most arrogant and irresponsible
young computer-oriented persons I have ever encountered. His actions
are simply not tolerable.


-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:48:58PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Such primitive reaction of yours is not likely to arouse interest
> in prospective contributors; to join debian and to work with people
> like you.

Fortunately, Eray, we're not all here for your amusement.



Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Despite the inappropriate manner in which this is being reported (and despite 
> having nothing to do with the bug that was actually filed), it's true that we
> won't want people upgrading from potato to woody to be caught unawares by this
> new feature.  Branden, perhaps the XFree4 server package should check if the
> previously-installed version was a 3.3 server, and offer to set up the
> Xwrapper.config file appropriately?

There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you
without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
too many people are missing it.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> If you call your insults to another contributor to debian "deserved rant",
> then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
> any social skills.

I'm sorry, WHO is misinterpeting their status?


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Erik" == Erik Hollensbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


 Erik> I don't quite get this... This list is moderated.

What in heavens name leads you to this conclusion?

manoj
-- 
 Entreprenuer, n.: A high-rolling risk taker who would rather be a
 spectacular failure than a dismal success.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

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

[Bud Rogers]

On Saturday 06 January 2001 16:07, Oliver M . Bolzer wrote:

> Legally, you might be allowed to (fair-use) quote private mail sent
> to you as one end of the communication pipe, but we are talking
> netiquette here. Really, it is not yours to decide wheter it is wrong
> or not to make that mail publicly available. It is only the authors
> choice. He might have whatever reasons to not want the content to be
> seen by the public.

Like all good flame wars, this one has gone on too long and ranged far 
afield from its original topic.  Sorry to fan the flames, but this begs 
for a response.

It is spectacularly bad form to quote private email in a public forum, 
but it is not illegal.  And it is spectacularly naive to count on the 
privacy of anything you tell another human being in any medium, 
electronic or otherwise, unless that other human being is a doctor, a 
lawyer or a priest and thus bound by the ethics of their profession.

-- 
Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.sirinet.net/~budr/zamm.html
All things in moderation.  And not too much moderation either.

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

[Oliver M . Bolzer]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:39:08PM +0200, Eray Ozkural <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote...
 
> What is more, I honestly did consider if there was anything that would
> be wrong to show publicly. Perhaps I assumed that everybody knew how
> unnecessarily aggressive the xfree86 maintainer is, and thus nobody
> would find hmh's remarks outrageous. As I was writing the reply I'd thought
> it had come from the list, but then I saw that it was private then I posted
> it. I thought the point I made was more important than anything said about
> the xfree86 maintainer.

You are still not getting it, arn`t you? It is not about the content at atll,
is about quoting PRIVATE mail in PUBLIC places without asking FIRST. Sorry
for shouting, but this has to be said. 

Legally, you might be allowed to (fair-use) quote private mail sent to you
as one end of the communication pipe, but we are talking netiquette 
here. Really, it is not yours to decide wheter it is wrong or not to make that
mail publicly available. It is only the authors choice. He might have whatever
reasons to not want the content to be seen by the public.

-- 

Oliver M. Bolzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

GPG (PGP) Fingerprint = 621B 52F6 2AC1 36DB 8761  018F 8786 87AD EF50 D1FF



pgp51ZHGkqewf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Eray Ozkural \(exa\)]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> I can handle it just fine when clueful people characterize me as
> "psychotic".  When professional ignorami like you get hysterical on two
> mailing lists and the BTS simultaneously over a FAQ, because you upgraded
> your production system to an unstable, unreleased operating system in a fit
> of hallucinogenic stupor, you do nothing but earn my contempt and a
> deserved rant.

What do you expect when you swear like that upon an innocent bug report?
BTW, I'm not a professional ignorami whatever that means, dear literary
pioneer of the list.

I upgraded our research cluster to unstable because I wanted
to use it for testing the latest cluster software.

If you call your insults to another contributor to debian "deserved rant",
then I'd think you are either misinterpreting your status or unaware of
any social skills.

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Clearly not, or you would know that XFree4 requires explicit configuration to
> allow non-root users to run the X server.  This is most definitely a FEATURE,
> added to improve security, /not/ a bug.
> 

It is different than what used to be the default. I know X just enough to use it
and write graphical programs with it (yea, I wrote a few xlib apps)
I'm not interested in the excessive security measures. What will I do if
the defaults prevent our display manager from working? The login and password
gets okay'ed by xdm/gdm/... but then it'll stop working... I'm downgrading
now, hope it works...

> I don't know why
> you think your personal bug reports are so important that they demand the
> attention of not only the package maintainer, but *also* everyone subscribed
> to d-d, but please stop.
> 

Only when I think it is important so that it requires the attention of more
people or when there is a conflict with the maintainer. Taking into account
the hostile and childish attitude of the maintainer, it is a very appropriate
action I guess.

I wish I had the kind of education that the so-called maintainer had so that
I would call him perhaps "wanker"? as it's popular on this list. So immature...

Exchanges with people like that degrade the quality of the work done here.

Anyway, I drop this thread. Consider how you might go about upgrading from
potato without disappointing users.

Thanks,

> Regards,
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer

:P goood luck with your postmodern codes.

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[exa]

Excuse me, I had not read the latter amusing part of the mail.
I'd just seen the reassign part.

It looks like Branden makes another hopeless attempt at defamation
of a bug reporter and fellow contributor with his underrated
literary skills.

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:36:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As you've demonstrated so amply on the Debian mailing lists, you are an
> idiot.
> 

Things you have demonstrated would need so much space to tell
that it wouldn't be fitting to tell them here. As you have noticed,
I'm not taking such lame remarks seriously and arguing over a public
list like adolescent lusers.

However, there is one thing that I do remember about your behavior
on this list. You are continously trying to correct other people's
spelling mistakes and I remember that you have written mails exclusively
about spelling a couple of times. Which is not a nice thing to do.
Whatever your English skills are not that relevant here.

Now, I'm sure you believe that you are a skilled programmer or an
extremely valuable member of the free software community. But then
of course, beliefs may not correspond to reality. A mere build and
configuration task...

Such primitive reaction of yours is not likely to arouse interest
in prospective contributors; to join debian and to work with people
like you.

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

[Henrique M Holschuh]

Hi Erik!

On Sat, 06 Jan 2001, Erik Hollensbe wrote:
> I don't quite get this... This list is moderated. Is it not too much for

Not that I know of.

> I have a hard time finding the logic in wasting your time complaing about
> how your time is being wasted. What does this solve?

Humans are hardly logic beings. And you're right, it does solve nothing,
which is probably the reason why a lot of people do it at least once :)

-- 
  "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

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:00:38PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > 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."
> > 
> 
> Great kiss ass.

I can handle it just fine when clueful people characterize me as
"psychotic".  When professional ignorami like you get hysterical on two
mailing lists and the BTS simultaneously over a FAQ, because you upgraded
your production system to an unstable, unreleased operating system in a fit
of hallucinogenic stupor, you do nothing but earn my contempt and a
deserved rant.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson |   If you have the slightest bit of
Debian GNU/Linux|   intellectual integrity you cannot
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |   support the government.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |   -- anonymous


pgpnGaiA8dLAE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:28:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text and
> ~~
> Um, there is. The thing that caused you to say "Great kiss ass" to hmh.
> 

Well, his answer to the quoted text was what caused me to do it. Sorry if
it sounded too offensive, but it looked like that.

What is more, I honestly did consider if there was anything that would
be wrong to show publicly. Perhaps I assumed that everybody knew how
unnecessarily aggressive the xfree86 maintainer is, and thus nobody
would find hmh's remarks outrageous. As I was writing the reply I'd thought
it had come from the list, but then I saw that it was private then I posted
it. I thought the point I made was more important than anything said about
the xfree86 maintainer.

> > me at all... Are you guys on crack?
> 
> Oh, of course. It's just you who is not, isn't it obvious? :>

:> I wish the xfree86 maintainer had taken this lightly, too. Instead he
chose to launch his usual array of derogatory remarks. Had it been
a salient developer, I might have felt hurt. Now, I have managed to
get the sid version here working and hope the lusers here will be happier.
Had to stand a lot of flames to get a small answer. :/

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:01:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Branden, perhaps the XFree4 server package should check if the
> previously-installed version was a 3.3 server, and offer to set up the
> Xwrapper.config file appropriately?

I considered this, but judged that the cost of writing a parser for the old
format that would be used only once -- when people would be quizzed by
debconf anyway -- exceeded the benefit.

If someone want to write some code that will parse the old /etc/X11/Xserver
file and load up the debconf database with values from it, and submit a
patch to xserver-common.config as a wishlist bug, please feel free.  I'll
give it serious consideration (especially if it's well written, matches my
shell scripting style, and has been tested).

-- 
G. Branden Robinson |   I just wanted to see what it looked like
Debian GNU/Linux|   in a spotlight.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |   -- Jim Morrison
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpUosA2FBOt4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Erik Hollensbe]

(this is not directed specifically at anyone)

I don't quite get this... This list is moderated. Is it not too much for
the moderator to moderate these postings and/or the user instead of
drawing hte hounds just because one guy things a bug should be in a
different spot?

Some logical discussion, or perhaps some without the interspersement of
flames, would be a fresh change.

I have a hard time finding the logic in wasting your time complaing about
how your time is being wasted. What does this solve?

-- 
Erik Hollensbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Programmer, Powells Internet Division
"I respect a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he is wrong."
- Malcolm X

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:56:41PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > >   You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
> > >  expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
> > >  heard of nettiquette?
> >
> > There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text and
> ~~
> Um, there is. The thing that caused you to say "Great kiss ass" to hmh.
>
> > What happens is that I've got a real-world problem but I am being told of
> > the complex-es of the maintainer of that package.
> >
> > Then, the guys who like him come in and tell me things that do not interest
> > me at all... Are you guys on crack?
>
> Oh, of course. It's just you who is not, isn't it obvious? :>
>
>

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

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> 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.

There is.  I forgot to add it to debian/xserver-common.files.  I have now
done so and it will appear in the next release.  Thanks for pointing this
out.

In the meantime, I have MIME-attached it.  To view it, use the following
command:

nroff -man whatever-you-save-it-as | pager

-- 
G. Branden Robinson |Convictions are more dangerous enemies
Debian GNU/Linux|of truth than lies.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |-- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
.\" This manpage is copyright (C) 2000 Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.
.\" Author: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.\"
.\" This is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify
.\" it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
.\" published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2,
.\" or (at your option) any later version.
.\"
.\" This is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
.\" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
.\" MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
.\" GNU General Public License for more details.
.\"
.\" You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
.\" along with the Debian GNU/Linux system; if not, write to the Free
.\" Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
.\" 02111-1307 USA
.TH Xwrapper.config 5 "17 Dec 2000" "Debian GNU/Linux"
.SH NAME
Xwrapper.config \- configuration options for X server wrapper
.SH DESCRIPTION
.I /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config
contains a set of flags that determine some of the behavior of Debian's X
server wrapper, which is installed on the system as
.IR /usr/X11R6/bin/X .
The purpose of the wrapper, and of this configuration file, is twofold:
firstly, to implement sound security practice.  Since the X server requires
superuser privileges, it may be unwise to permit just any user on the
system to execute it.  Even if the X server is not exploitable in the sense
of permitting ordinary users to gain elevated privileges, a poorly-written
or insufficiently-tested hardware driver for the X server may cause bus
lockups and freeze the system, an unpleasant experience for anyone using it
at the time.
.PP
Secondly, a wrapper is a convenient place to set up an execution
environment for the X server distinct from the configurable parameters
of the X server itself.
.PP
.B Xwrapper.config
may be edited by hand, but it is typically configured via debconf, the
Debian configuration tool.  The X server wrapper is part of the
.I xserver-common
Debian package, therefore the parameters of
.B Xwrapper.config
may be changed with the command
.IR "dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common" .
See
.IR dpkg-reconfigure (8)
for more information.
.PP
The format of
.B Xwrapper.config
is a text file containing a series of lines of the form
.TP
.IR name = value
.PP
where
.I name
is a variable name containing any combination of numbers, letters, or
underscore (_) characters, and
.I value
is any combination of letters, numbers, underscores (_), dashes (-).
.I value
may also contain spaces as long as there is at least one character from the
list above bounding the space(s) on both sides.  Whitespace before and
after
.IR name , value ,
or the equals sign is legal but ignored.  Any lines not matching the above
described legal format are ignored.  Note that this specification may
change as the X server wrapper develops.
.PP
Available options are:
.IP allowed_users
may be set to one of the following values:
.BR rootonly , console , anybody .
"rootonly" indicates that only the root user may start the X server;
"console" indicates that root, or any user whose controlling TTY is a
virtual console, may start the X server; and "anybody" indicates that any
user may start the X server.
.IP nice_value
may be any integer in the interval [-20,20].  This is used to set the
executing X server's process priority.  See
.IR nice (1).
.SH SEE ALSO
.IR dpkg-reconfigure (8),
.IR nice (1)
.SH AUTHOR
This manpage was written by Branden Robinson for Progeny Linux Systems,
Inc., and Debian GNU/Linux.


pgp5XjeDeij0w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Henrique M Holschuh]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > 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."
> > 
> 
> Great kiss ass.

Flamewar taken to private mail. Move along people, there's nothing to see
here (I hope, that is).

-- 
  "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


pgpEW4AvZmpdc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Josip Rodin]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:56:41PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
> >  expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
> >  heard of nettiquette? 
> 
> There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text and
~~
Um, there is. The thing that caused you to say "Great kiss ass" to hmh.

> What happens is that I've got a real-world problem but I am being told of
> the complex-es of the maintainer of that package.
> 
> Then, the guys who like him come in and tell me things that do not interest
> me at all... Are you guys on crack?

Oh, of course. It's just you who is not, isn't it obvious? :>

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> 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."
> 

Great kiss ass.

> 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).
> 

I don't think so.

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:43:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
>  expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
>  heard of nettiquette? 

There is nothing personal in my reply and neither in quoted text and
I addressed the whole list not particularly the sender. If these aren't
satisfactory, very well.

What happens is that I've got a real-world problem but I am being told of
the complex-es of the maintainer of that package.

Then, the guys who like him come in and tell me things that do not interest
me at all... Are you guys on crack?

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:16:22PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 2a. Install (or recompile) the specific packages from unstable that fix the
> bugs

That I should have done...

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Eray" == Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

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

You have the gall to quote private email on a public list, and
 expect people to accord you any attention whatsoever? Have you ever
 heard of nettiquette? 

*plonk*

manoj
-- 
 "Sudden de-compression Sucks!" Dennis Robert Gorrie,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

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

[Henrique M Holschuh]

> 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


pgpiFdiMiBngq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:29:35PM +0200, Eray Ozkural wrote:

> 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...

Bugfixes are not a good reason to upgrade to unstable.  You are likely to
introduce more bugs than you fix.  Instead, try:

1. Isolate the bugs that are causing your problems

  THEN

2a. Install (or recompile) the specific packages from unstable that fix the
bugs
  OR
2b. Backport the fixes

-- 
 - mdz

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

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:18:56PM +0100, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
> 
> >You might be interested in RTFMing, or checking past bugs, or having
> > a look at /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config.

> I did RTFM mf.

Clearly not, or you would know that XFree4 requires explicit configuration to
allow non-root users to run the X server.  This is most definitely a FEATURE,
added to improve security, /not/ a bug.

Being ignorant of this is excusable; Debian developers are not expected to
know everything about everything that's in unstable.  Whining to debian-devel
because installing unstable broke things for your users, and Cc:ing
debian-devel on all of your bug reports, is NOT excusable.  I don't know why
you think your personal bug reports are so important that they demand the
attention of not only the package maintainer, but *also* everyone subscribed
to d-d, but please stop.

> Got any idea why this is happening? The problem is that
> we just upgraded, didn't alter anything and ended up with a broken
> xinit. How can this be possible?

Despite the inappropriate manner in which this is being reported (and despite 
having nothing to do with the bug that was actually filed), it's true that we
won't want people upgrading from potato to woody to be caught unawares by this
new feature.  Branden, perhaps the XFree4 server package should check if the
previously-installed version was a 3.3 server, and offer to set up the
Xwrapper.config file appropriately?

Regards,
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

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

[exa]

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.

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.
> 

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...

BTW, the users here are not at all interested in the psychological state
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
way Branden did it, due to the big number of bug reports he must have skimmed
quickly and reassigned it to gdm. I'm sure that he will check the upgrade
path after the additional information I gave. [+]

> Now, back to your problem. Please verify if /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config lists
> allowed_users=something.  You want to make that 'something' "console" or
> "any" I think.

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

> 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
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
common case and fiddled with some "security" options but wasn't able to resolve
the problem which led me to ask it here, because I didn't find an FAQ. "Deal 
with it,
or quit." isn't the kind of answer I expect about a display system that we use
daily.

Regards,

[*] Inappropriate dismissal or incorrect evaluation of bug reports could
be dealt with if bug reports were subject to peer review. That's why I
posted here. I'm not blaming Branden, nor do I say that this is a very
important bug. However, it is generating a lot of dissatisfaction with
the system here, and I have to solve it. I thought that review by
wider audience would be instrumental in that.

[+] Not because I'm especially fond of the developer in question. It is
not a matter of personal liking.

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Samuel Hocevar]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:
 
> I did RTFM mf. Got any idea why this is happening? The problem is that
> we just upgraded, didn't alter anything and ended up with a broken
> xinit. How can this be possible?

   Dunno. Shit may happen, you know. But I don't think it's worth Cc:ing
debian-devel and debian-x every time a configuration file changes in
unstable.

Sam.
-- 
Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
for DVDs in Linux screw the MPAA and ; do dig $DVDs.z.zoy.org ; done | \
  perl -ne 's/\.//g; print pack("H224",$1) if(/^x([^z]*)/)' | gunzip

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:18:56PM +0100, Samuel Hocevar wrote:

>You might be interested in RTFMing, or checking past bugs, or having
> a look at /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config.
> 

I did RTFM mf. Got any idea why this is happening? The problem is that
we just upgraded, didn't alter anything and ended up with a broken
xinit. How can this be possible?

Regards,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Samuel Hocevar]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001, Eray Ozkural wrote:

> Anyway, here is what I get:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ startx
> 
> X: user not authorized to run the X server, aborting.
> xinit:  unexpected signal 2
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
> 
> Is this normal? Users could start their X servers before
> upgrading a couple of weeks ago so I presume the upgrade
> corrupts something in the way. How do I fix this?

   You might be interested in RTFMing, or checking past bugs, or having
a look at /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config.

Best regards,
Sam.
-- 
Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
for DVDs in Linux screw the MPAA and ; do dig $DVDs.z.zoy.org ; done | \
  perl -ne 's/\.//g; print pack("H224",$1) if(/^x([^z]*)/)' | gunzip

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

[exa]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:36:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> reassign 81397 gdm
> thanks
> 

hi branden,

if you read the bug report carefully, you'll see that
I complain about not being able to login from *anywhere*
including gdm. 

I'm working on it now, and it seems I can't start X
as a normal user from console. And also I can't start it
from neither xdm, wings or gdm

Additional info: with the default xdm (apt-get install xdm)
I read in the xdm log something like
sessreg: not found

where is this sessreg binary supposed to be found? [xutils which
doesn't exist??? :(]

 Please Read *

Anyway, here is what I get:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ startx

X: user not authorized to run the X server, aborting.
xinit:  unexpected signal 2

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$

Is this normal? Users could start their X servers before
upgrading a couple of weeks ago so I presume the upgrade
corrupts something in the way. How do I fix this?

please reopen the bug

thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo

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

[Branden Robinson]

reassign 81397 gdm
thanks

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:20:42PM +0200, Eray 'exa' Ozkural wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.0.1-9
> Severity: important
> 
> When I try to start X server as a user, the X server complains that
> the authorization has failed and terminates. Likewise when
> trying to login from gdm (tried other display managers, too)
> 
> I can't paste anything now but as far as I can summarize:
> 
> from auth.log, a message like
> 
> PAM_unix[...]: authentication failure; (uid=0) -> exa for gdm service

As you've demonstrated so amply on the Debian mailing lists, you are an
idiot.

Whether gdm can get auth credentials back from PAM involves the X server
not at all.

This bug may not be gdm's fault either, but it's a far better approximation
than bitching about xserver-xfree86.

> help please.

No one in Debian can give you the help you need.  You need powerful
antipsychotic drugs.

Don't even think about replying privately.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson |I am sorry, but what you have mistaken
Debian GNU/Linux|for malicious intent is nothing more
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |than sheer incompetence!
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |-- J. L. Rizzo II


pgpmhuoG4A6Op.pgp
Description: PGP signature