I have written a patch to allow polkit-based authentication for brlapi.
The policy file that I'm including will allow an active (local) user while
not allowing an inactive/remote user to authenticate. This allows a local
user to just connect a Braille display and have it work, at least for a
US
Mike Gorse, on Thu 28 Jan 2016 10:22:41 -0500, wrote:
> I have written a patch to allow polkit-based authentication for brlapi.
Oh, that's very interesting. Definitely pushed on my to-look list :)
Samuel
___
This message was sent via the BRLTTY mailing
Hello,
Mike Gorse, on Thu 28 Jan 2016 10:22:41 -0500, wrote:
> It shouldn't have any effect unless Auth=polkit is passed.
Mmm, I wonder whether we shouldn't want to make this the default? I.e.
extend the auth syntax to include several authentication possibilities,
and include both the authkey fi
[quoted lines by Samuel Thibault on 2016/01/28 at 23:05 +0100]
>Mmm, I wonder whether we shouldn't want to make this the default? I.e.
>extend the auth syntax to include several authentication possibilities,
>and include both the authkey file and auth=polkit.
I believe (it's been a while) that m
Dave Mielke, on Thu 28 Jan 2016 17:18:02 -0500, wrote:
> Whatever we do should be conditional with respect to dependencies. If there
> are
> several ways to communicate then we should probably support all of them
It's the same way to communicate. The question is just whether to use an
existing i
[quoted lines by Samuel Thibault on 2016/01/28 at 23:26 +0100]
>It's the same way to communicate. The question is just whether to use an
>existing implementation, or recode it to avoid the glib dependency.
My preference is not to have a dependency if it isn't necessary.
--
Dave Mielke
[quoted lines by Mike Gorse on 2016/01/28 at 10:22 -0500]
>I have written a patch to allow polkit-based authentication for
>brlapi.
Cool! Thanks. Your patch has now been committed to the repository. I've made a
few formatting changes so please verify that I haven't broken anything.
There are a
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Samuel Thibault wrote:
--- a/Programs/brlapi_protocol.h
+++ b/Programs/brlapi_protocol.h
No need for a protocol change indeed, you can drop this spurious trivial change.
Thanks for the catch. Yeah, that isn't needed--at first I thought that it
would be necessary, then
