On 2013-11-14 08:51:11 +0100, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
In my opinion, the lock (slock) shall be remain very light based a
very minimum of x11, in other words just on the x11 minimum of x11
layer functions/libs
Correctness before simplicity, always in that order.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:51:11AM +0100, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
In my opinion, the lock (slock) shall be remain very light based a
very minimum of x11, in other words just on the x11 minimum of x11
layer functions/libs
slock might be a minimal x11 lock, without any
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:51:11AM +0100, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
In my opinion, the lock (slock) shall be remain very light based a
very minimum of x11, in other words just on the x11 minimum of x11
layer functions/libs
[...]
It seems you mistake suckless for the minimalism
Me, I do believe that slock shall be targeting the aim of this program:
1) lock x11.
Ok, look my example, think about a student behind the rules of the admin.
In an ideal case, he compiles the slock, and he locks and it really works.
In the present case, he compile, and it crashes since he
On 2013-11-14 15:46:23 +0100, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
Me, I do believe that slock shall be targeting the aim of this program:
1) lock x11.
Lock X11 *in a correct fashion*.
pgpQa2d9WxsBQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi Patrick,
On 11/14/13, patrick295767 patrick295767 patrick295...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, look my example, think about a student behind the rules of the admin.
Then you must appeal to the administrator(s) and provide the source so that
they may review it and install it. just the same way
With 20'000 students including 9000 graduates and about 50 research
laboratories, each year, believe me
that you will not get any support for anything from the admin of the machines.
I already asked or tried, and to get any support for similar things,
such as installation of a software on a
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:44 PM, patrick295767 patrick295767
patrick295...@gmail.com wrote:
You get your Linux box, and if you wanna use a specific program you
always can compile to your local.
Luckily, suckless software is generally easy to patch. Which means you
can ship your own version (to
Hi,
Slock is a nice application. However I would go on simpler
even to avoid the suid/sgid check.
In my opinion, it could/should stick to a minimum.
/ramdisk/slock-1.1$ make
slock build options:
CFLAGS = -std=c99 -pedantic -Wall -Os -I. -I/usr/include
-I/usr/X11R6/include -DVERSION=1.1
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:32:44PM +0100, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
Hi,
Slock is a nice application. However I would go on simpler
even to avoid the suid/sgid check.
So we should not check for errors anymore? That check is
perfectly valid.
bye,
sin
On 11/13/13, sin s...@2f30.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:32:44PM +0100, patrick295767 patrick295767
wrote:
even to avoid the suid/sgid check.
So we should not check for errors anymore? That check is
perfectly valid.
Yeah, i would agree with sin here, it makes sense to tell the
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:32:44PM +0100, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
Hi,
Slock is a nice application. However I would go on simpler
even to avoid the suid/sgid check.
On a side note for the other check on getpwuid() we should really
be setting errno to zero before the call and
In my opinion, the lock (slock) shall be remain very light based a
very minimum of x11, in other words just on the x11 minimum of x11
layer functions/libs
slock might be a minimal x11 lock, without any additional features. Is
actually getpwuid() really needed? slock function might be to
13 matches
Mail list logo
