[gentoo-dev] ANN: ufed 0.3

[gentoo-dev] ANN: ufed 0.3

[Robin H.Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1465 bytes --]

[if reading this on -core, please reply on -dev]
[sorry for the cross-posting]

UFED 0.3 is now available in unstable on all arches for testing.

partial summary:
- added use strict vars and cleaned up resulting errors 
- bug 15124 fixed (libg++ not listing) 
- added processing of use.defaults and use.mask, virtuals not processed 
- added (+ -) notation for flags how flags are enabled 
- bug 19479 partially fixed. ignoring PortDir, if PORTDIR is based on
  something else ie ${BASE}/dir it will still fail 

Some of the other issues are still not fixed, but we would like some
more testing on this anyway.

Could everybody with UFED bugs please check out this release and tell me
if your problem still exists or not? Other testers welcome as well. The
more the better :-).

Thanks for this release go to:
Fred <fava@gentoo.org> - MANY ideas/bugfixes/features 
Arun <codebear@gentoo.org> - ideas/bugfixes/features
Seemant <seemant@gentoo.org> - for getting us devs together on ufed
Robin <robbat2@gentoo.org> - ideas, planning, documentation, managing ;-) 

This release is mainly the integration if the code Fred came up with.
Arun's euse code will be merging to a limited degree for the next
version.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ANN: ufed 0.3

[Daniel Armyr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

OK, immediately I notice that ufed does not check if it has
authorisation to change any of the files it is made to change. I don't
believe one should not be able to run it as non-root, but a warning or
some "Read only mode" sign should definately be issued.

//Daniel Armyr
- --
=========================================
daniel.armyr@home.se     f00-dar@f.kth.se

C118 KEVII Hall
1A Kent Ridge Rd S.119224
Singapore                 PGP@pgp.mit.edu
=========================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+qTLZhxtTUWLs2lERAgQTAJ4/imTy+v//YbkI43vuTOyq5prF6gCfVHsq
Sro4+hHFnxrmwNNpyIJ/hmc=
=8yQd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ANN: ufed 0.3

[Fred Van Andel]

Daniel Armyr <daniel.armyr@home.se> wrote:
(04/25/2003 06:06)

>OK, immediately I notice that ufed does not check if it has
>authorisation to change any of the files it is made to change. I don't
>believe one should not be able to run it as non-root, but a warning or
>some "Read only mode" sign should definately be issued.
>
>//Daniel Armyr

How about the save button changes its label to from:
   <           Save            >
to 
   <Read only/No saving>

Fred Van Andel
fava@gentoo.org



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ANN: ufed 0.3

[Robin H.Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 634 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:06:35PM +0800, Daniel Armyr wrote:
> OK, immediately I notice that ufed does not check if it has
> authorisation to change any of the files it is made to change. I don't
> believe one should not be able to run it as non-root, but a warning or
> some "Read only mode" sign should definately be issued.
Hmm. Good point. I think we should throw an error and not start UFED.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ANN: ufed 0.3

[Arun Bhanu]

On 08:55 Fri 25 Apr     , Robin H.Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:06:35PM +0800, Daniel Armyr wrote:
> > OK, immediately I notice that ufed does not check if it has
> > authorisation to change any of the files it is made to change. I don't
> > believe one should not be able to run it as non-root, but a warning or
> > some "Read only mode" sign should definately be issued.
> Hmm. Good point. I think we should throw an error and not start UFED.

I've implemented this check in a subroutine for euse. When we implement the
common API for both ufed and euse, we could use this subroutine. 

User may start ufed just to see the flags set (++-) and also to see the
description of a particular USE flag. So *not* starting UFED for non-root users
is not quite correct. They should see a read only UFED, with SAVE button
disabled. Euse currently implements it this way. So, when non-root users access
euse all the read only functions -i, -c, -d, -e is available. The -E and -D are
not allowed. It does a check at the beginning and shows a warning if there is
not enough permissions.

Just my thoughts.

		Arun


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list