hello.
entrance have a problem with users whose home dirs reside on nfs.
if the nfs export is set to root-squash, entrance does not succeed in
creating the
authentication file (.Xauthority).
i guess the problem is it does not set it's uid at the appropriate time,
but im
shooting blind here
T
Nir Tzachar wrote:
hello.
entrance have a problem with users whose home dirs reside on nfs.
if the nfs export is set to root-squash, entrance does not succeed in
creating the
authentication file (.Xauthority).
i guess the problem is it does not set it's uid at the appropriate time,
but im
sho
Nir Tzachar wrote:
hello.
entrance have a problem with users whose home dirs reside on nfs.
if the nfs export is set to root-squash, entrance does not succeed in
creating the
authentication file (.Xauthority).
i guess the problem is it does not set it's uid at the appropriate time,
but im
sho
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 09:38 -0500, Ibukun Olumuyiwa wrote:
> Nir Tzachar wrote:
> > hello.
> >
> > entrance have a problem with users whose home dirs reside on nfs.
> > if the nfs export is set to root-squash, entrance does not succeed in
> > creating the
> > authentication file (.Xauthority).
>
Nir Tzachar wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 09:38 -0500, Ibukun Olumuyiwa wrote:
Nir Tzachar wrote:
hello.
entrance have a problem with users whose home dirs reside on nfs.
if the nfs export is set to root-squash, entrance does not succeed in
creating the
authentication file (.Xauthority).
i
> Of course. Since I wrote the stupid program myself, I have no idea what
> the heck I'm talking about. I'd give you an answer but you don't deserve
> one, so I'll let you figure it out on your own, oh wise one.
why the attitude?
have i insulted you in any way? i dont think so.
even so, i apolo
On Sunday, 03 July 2005, at 10:53:11 (+0300),
Nir Tzachar wrote:
> why the attitude?
Maybe because you're acting like a dickhead? Let's review the
timeline, shall we?
1. You have a question. A somewhat silly one, but a question
nonetheless.
2. You post it to the developers list hoping
This is getting out of hand. Please, everybody, go back to your
respective corners for some time out. We will proceed around the
same time tomorrow, hopefully with cooler heads.
Thank you.
Azundris!
---
SF.Net email is sponsored b
> 1. You have a question. A somewhat silly one, but a question
> nonetheless.
YOU consider it silly.
>
> 2. You post it to the developers list hoping for an answer.
first posted to the user list, got no answer. then posted to devel list,
got no answer. reposted, got an answer after severa
Nir Tzachar wrote:
You didn't insult him. You just acted as though you knew more than he
about his own program. So he decided that you could fend for
yourself. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
well, i still think i know more than him (and you) about MY problem.
i am the most qualified p
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:44:54 +0300 (IDT) Nir Tzachar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> but again, if you had hundreds of users, whose work you had to keep backed
> up (and allow them to restore files online), what other solution would you
> use?? we use several network appliance machines, exporting
> i think he was referring to using root-squash. it's an entirely pointless
> option
> and does not make the nfs exporting any more secure (disallowing root access
> to
> files like it would be allowed locally is pointless as if u are root - u can
> setuid/seteuid or su to the user id u need then
Aren't we talking about a really trivial patch here?
I dont have the means to test this, but something like this should work
right? (the debug logging may not, and I know nothing about XauLockAuth
and what it requires), but what is been asked for is very trivial.
Nick
eg
Index: daemon/auth.
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:55:13 +0300 Nir Tzachar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> > i think he was referring to using root-squash. it's an entirely pointless
> > option and does not make the nfs exporting any more secure (disallowing root
> > access to files like it would be allowed locally is pointle
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 16:21 +1000, Nick Blievers wrote:
> Aren't we talking about a really trivial patch here?
>
> I dont have the means to test this, but something like this should work
> right? (the debug logging may not, and I know nothing about XauLockAuth
> and what it requires), but what i
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 16:21 +1000, Nick Blievers wrote:
> Aren't we talking about a really trivial patch here?
>
> I dont have the means to test this, but something like this should work
> right? (the debug logging may not, and I know nothing about XauLockAuth
> and what it requires), but what i
the patch works.
thanks a lot.
would it be included in the cvs
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Ge
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:21:05 +1000 Nick Blievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Aren't we talking about a really trivial patch here?
>
> I dont have the means to test this, but something like this should work
> right? (the debug logging may not, and I know nothing about XauLockAuth
> and what i
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:21:05 +1000 Nick Blievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
>
>
>>Aren't we talking about a really trivial patch here?
>>
>>I dont have the means to test this, but something like this should work
>>right? (the debug logging may not, a
19 matches
Mail list logo
