> This is my answer to a private mail (it seems...) I don't want to talk > about these in private. Please note the reason why I carried this bug > report to the list.
Well, sorry but now you're in MY non-permanent (YET) shitlist for violating netiquette, and I'll have to acknowledge that Branden Was Right (tm) about you. Hint: next time, ASK FOR PERMISSION FIRST before you do a public posting of private email. Geez. You'd have gotten it, but it is a matter of principle to ask first. > On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > You've already gotten into Branden's permanent shitlist. Please be more > > reserved on ANYTHING you do that might even remotely involve his packages, > > ok? We don't need him going psycothic again. Branden, please understand this for what it is meant: "Branden does not like to be poked. He seems to like even less to be poked by you. Please don't poke him, he'll bite back and we get to watch the fallout." > What is this supposed to mean? There are many users here suffering from this > problem since this is a multi-user system and none of them have the time > to learn the peculiarities of x. They, and I, just want to use this stuff > and I moved the system to unstable because it seemed we needed some of > the bug fixes... It means your X *may* be configured not to allow anyone but root to execute the wrapper. Check the damn Xwrapper.config file. I even said that over private mail to be nicer and not bother this list with yet another redudant reply... The Xrapper.config issue has been documented in a number of bug reports (search the BTS), and probably many -user and -devel posts (search the list archives, mind the sometimes quirky search engine). > of a particular developer. On the contrary, every developer should be required > to deal with every bug report in an objective manner. [*] Which I think is the Most developers (if not all of them) deal with bug reports in an objective manner, or don't deal with them at all (because they're MIA or are very short on time). > Okay, i'll check that. Hadn't found that myself. Thanks. I'm downgrading X > now, but I might need this information. FYI I'm running up-to-date sid X packages here, and they seem to work just fine. > > This was discussed in d-user, d-devel and numerous bug reports to the point > > that Branden would go "Overfiend" on *anyone* asking it again. > > I've never seen this mentioned, nor is it written down anywhere and I don't > think that mailing search stuff really works... And I wouldn't think I'd be That mailing search stuff has some weird problems, yes. As for not being written down anywhere, the postinst asks you about it. I think there is a manpage for Xwrappers.config, but it's not installed in my system. > able to find it with this much info (i can't start x as a user). Point > me to an FAQ, and I will understand it then. I thought this might be some Hmm... why didn't you look at what X asks during configure phase, as well as the files in /etc/X11? That's usually a very good first check before posting a question. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
pgpiFdiMiBngq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
