On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:11:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Excerpts from Christophe Fergeau's message of Mon Jun 29 17:01:23 +0200 2015: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:52:31PM +0200, Suchánek Michal wrote: > > > Or the other way around compiling in policykit support *should not > > > disable* access to already accessible devices. > > > > We agree on that, and the log of the commit you revert also agrees > > « So this patch changes things to first call the helper and only then > > try to open the device node. » > > > > > It's indeed the case. However, this is merely a cosmetic issue while > > > the fix for the cosmetic issue causes a functional error. > > > > But to fix your issue, you don't have to reintroduce this cosmetic > > issue, you could just make sure we try to directly open the USB device > > if the policykit call failed. > > The problem is how do you present the error then? > > If policykit call fails and you proceed to open the device directly do > you report the policykit error or the libusb error or somehow merge > them?
I'd present the policykit error when the binary is built with policykit support. Christophe
pgpH57w8xWanJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
