On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how can doing the chdir() break anything? A relative
> symlink has to be resolved relative to the directory in which the
Because now you're in a different directory than you expect. However,
since this is just exec()ing the X serve
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how can doing the chdir() break anything? A relative
> symlink has to be resolved relative to the directory in which the
Because now you're in a different directory than you expect. However,
since this is just exec()ing the X serve
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 06:22:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Eh? I haven't weighed in on this issue at all. I simply saw the
> changelog message when upgrading my X packages, read the 138195 bug
> report, and wondered why nobody had pointed out what seemed "obvious" to
> me.
Er, sorry. For some r
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 06:22:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Eh? I haven't weighed in on this issue at all. I simply saw the
> changelog message when upgrading my X packages, read the 138195 bug
> report, and wondered why nobody had pointed out what seemed "obvious" to
> me.
Er, sorry. For some r
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
> chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn't
> you?
>
> If so, how is this an advantage over the current implementation?
Eh? I haven't weighed in on this is
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:44:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Advantages:
> - won't break anything that relies on X being started from a particular
>directory
You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn'
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
> chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn't
> you?
>
> If so, how is this an advantage over the current implementation?
Eh? I haven't weighed in on this is
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:44:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Advantages:
> - won't break anything that relies on X being started from a particular
>directory
You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn'
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it seems like the "right" fix to
this problem is to use the symlink as it is intended, which is to say
calling execv on it and letting the kernel resolve it.
I understand the desire to make sure the symlink doesn't point back to
the wrapper, but you can still
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it seems like the "right" fix to
this problem is to use the symlink as it is intended, which is to say
calling execv on it and letting the kernel resolve it.
I understand the desire to make sure the symlink doesn't point back to
the wrapper, but you can still
10 matches
Mail list logo
