Re: FTBS owncloud-client

2013-10-16 Thread Sandro Knauß
Hi, today I got the information, that FreeBSD has a working port for owncloud- client: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/deskutils/mirall/ I really don't understand, why they haven't the problems with FolderWatcher :D But well I'll add the patches in the next round. Tomorrow oCC 1.4.2 will be

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)

2013-10-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 11:26:29 +0200, a écrit : > > All of them. Everything that is provided in cmsgcred is supposed to have > > been checked by the operating system as being correct. > > How to handle case where not all ancillary data is sent, e.g. groups > missing? Well, you can st

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)

2013-10-16 Thread Svante Signell
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:46 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 09:50:27 +0200, a écrit : > > Also, you need to check that it works when the sender and the receiver > don't have the same uid/gid/etc., e.g. root sending to a normal user > (which is one of the most us

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)

2013-10-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 09:50:27 +0200, a écrit : > > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 09:24 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 07:44:11 +0200, a écrit : > > > What about being paranoid, and do the check on both the transmit _and_ > > > receive side? > > > > Ther

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)

2013-10-16 Thread Svante Signell
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 09:24 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 07:44:11 +0200, a écrit : > > What about being paranoid, and do the check on both the transmit _and_ > > receive side? > > There is no need for a check on the transmit side: the sender does know > for s

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)

2013-10-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 07:35:51 +0200, a écrit : > OK, I'll move the check to recvmsg.c then. No problem:) We can also do a > full re-authentication at the receive end, should that be added too? I don't remember what that means, but you might need that. In any case, you should really

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)

2013-10-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 07:44:11 +0200, a écrit : > What about being paranoid, and do the check on both the transmit _and_ > receive side? There is no need for a check on the transmit side: the sender does know for sure what he is. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ