Russ Allbery wrote:
> I believe every system
> with GNOME or KDE installed has a few menu entries that need to run a
> program as root. So it's worthwhile figuring out a standardized way of
> doing this.
it's worthwile enough if one considers that without a proper fix here,
those applications are
(This is probably not the right mailing list for this discussion.)
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is certainly a consensus to use it for (Debian) menu entry and it
> is seldom used.
su-to-root is not *that* seldomly used. Out of the 48 menu entries on my
system, two use it,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 05:27:12PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > Please also remember that xdg-utils is Priority: optional while
> > debianutils
> > > is Essential: yes, Priority: required; meaning that if packages were to
> > > use 'xdg-su-wrapper' they would have to Depend on xdg-utils
Hello Bill,
First of all sorry for the late response, I've been very busy with RL lately.
On 03/03/2008, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 11:58:49AM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
> > IMHO we can not just 'give up' because there's no common way to do it; if
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 11:58:49AM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Which as far as I'm aware of it doesn't exist.
It used to. Actually su-to-root desktop guessing code was lifted from
the script in xdg-menu. I do not know why it was removed, thought it
was not very good
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:25:40PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> so.. what is the status of this? bill, do you intend to hand over
> su-to-root to debianutils?
At tis point, I do not intend to do that, no.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:59:11PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Hello Bill,
>>
>> Some weeks ago I proposed a new release goal which goal is to use
>> su-to-root instead of a custom *su wrapper in menu and .desktop files[1].
>>
>> As Armin Berres stated on his messag
On mar, 2008-02-05 at 08:17 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On lun, 2008-02-04 at 22:29 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > Maybe there are some alternatives, but currently using su in
> > x-terminal-emulator would be ok.
>
> There is ktsuss (http://nomius.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-new-tool.html)
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:59:11PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> Some weeks ago I proposed a new release goal which goal is to use su-to-root
> instead of a custom *su wrapper in menu and .desktop files[1].
>
> As Armin Berres stated on his message[2] there are some
> depende
so.. what is the status of this? bill, do you intend to hand over
su-to-root to debianutils?
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, 04 Feb 08 12:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Good question.
> > At least for KDE 4 Apps there is no Problem -- kdesu from KDE 4 is
> > always around if kdelibs5 (the KDE 4 libraries) is installed.
> > When you have a KDE 3 Desktop kdebase-bin is no
On lun, 2008-02-04 at 22:29 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> Maybe there are some alternatives, but currently using su in
> x-terminal-emulator would be ok.
There is ktsuss (http://nomius.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-new-tool.html)
wich is not in Debian.
I may have a look and test it in Xfce environm
On lun, 2008-02-04 at 14:32 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> sux would be the other alternative that I know of that's already in
> Debian, but I've never even installed it, let alone run it, so I don't
> know how it looks and whether it would fit with Xfce.
sux seems to only be a wrapper around su to
Yves-Alexis Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On lun, 2008-02-04 at 12:40 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Xfce probably doesn't pull in any of the various wrappers, so the
>> default on Xfce would probably be su in an xterm.
> Yeah, gksu takes too much gnome dependencies for being a requirement i
On lun, 2008-02-04 at 12:40 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Or Xfce? Is gksu installed by default?
>
> Xfce probably doesn't pull in any of the various wrappers, so the
> default
> on Xfce would probably be su in an xterm.
Yeah, gksu takes too much gnome dependencies for being a requirement in
Xfc
Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good question.
> At least for KDE 4 Apps there is no Problem -- kdesu from KDE 4 is
> always around if kdelibs5 (the KDE 4 libraries) is installed.
> When you have a KDE 3 Desktop kdebase-bin is normally around so kdesu
> should be there.
> What about Gn
On Sun, 03 Feb 08 15:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 03 Feb 08 13:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> I don't think this is necessary. su-to-root falls back to su if none
> >> of the other packages exist, and su is essential. Similarly, under X,
> >> it
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 08:22:54PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Although I'm still not very much convinced by debianutils' description (more
> specifically the "installation scripts of Debian packages" part) I'm now
> CC'ing Clint Adams so he can hopefully express his POV together with Bill
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And about its inclusion on debianutils, according to its description[0]
> > su-to-root seems not to fit there. Of course the description can be
> > changed for su-to-root's inclusion.
>
> su-to-root is sort
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And about its inclusion on debianutils, according to its description[0]
> su-to-root seems not to fit there. Of course the description can be
> changed for su-to-root's inclusion.
su-to-root is sort of a "sensible-su" similar to the sensible-browser,
> Even better, given the tiny size and the general functionality provided by
> su-to-root, could it moved to debianutils? Then it would be essential and
> no dependencies would be required. If we're going to standardize on it
> throughout the distribution (which I believe is the right thing to do
Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 08 13:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't think this is necessary. su-to-root falls back to su if none
>> of the other packages exist, and su is essential. Similarly, under X,
>> it falls back to x-terminal-emulator if none of the other pa
On Sun, 03 Feb 08 13:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This would have the benefit of making su-to-root OR depend, instead of
> > just suggest, on the several packages which provide a su* wrapper
> > ensuring its functionality.
>
> I don't think this is necessary. su-to-root falls back to su if none of
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As Armin Berres stated on his message[2] there are some
> dependencies/recommends/suggests that need to be considered first.
> Since su-to-root is currently just a shell script I would your opinion
> on whether su-to-root (and its translations and doc
Hello Bill,
Some weeks ago I proposed a new release goal which goal is to use su-to-root
instead of a custom *su wrapper in menu and .desktop files[1].
As Armin Berres stated on his message[2] there are some
dependencies/recommends/suggests that need to be considered first.
Since su-to-root is
25 matches
Mail list logo
