Re: [blfs-dev] lxqt-sudo

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Em 05-11-2015 00:23, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
> Em 04-11-2015 22:49, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 07:02:43PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
 Em 04-11-2015 21:02, ferna...@higgs.linuxfromscratch.org escreveu:
> Author: fernando
> Date: Wed Nov  4 16:02:43 2015
> New Revision: 16607
>

> • Update to Update to LXQt 0.10.0.


 Haven't included the new ''lxqt-sudo (usable as `lxsu` or `lxsudo`)'',
 because I have great doubt if somebody using (B)LFS will ever use it.
 Many don't even like sudo.

 However it should be easy to add.
>>>
>>> I do need and like sudo, but I do that from the command line.  I don't know
>>> what lxqt-sudo  would do for the user.
>>>
>>>   -- Bruce
>>>
>> I'm from the "I dislike sudo" tendency - it has its uses (I use it
>> to allow swsuspend with xbindkeys, and maybe in one or two other
>> places - I also use it on my netbook to allow a user to connect to
>> my wifi).  For installing software, I deviate from BLFS bt
>> configuring and building as root.  But on this one, I'm with Bruce -
>> an example of what it would allow|simplify would help.
>>
>> ĸen
>>
> 
> I didn't know the answer. Searched and one thing is that pcmanfm has an
> option to "open as root" under "Tools". This could be used for files,
> folders or even applications (pcmanfm has a place named Applications).
> Then, apparently, a graphical dialogue should pop up to enter the
> password (I've seen an example in qsudo:
> 
> https://github.com/lxde/lxqt/issues/537#issuecomment-102769178
> 
> The project was at
> 
> https://github.com/alfredobonino/qsudo
> 
> but was abandoned in favour of lxqt-sudo.
> 
> If you know what is gksudo gksu kdesu kdesudo, it should be similar.
> 
> At about 2007 or 8, Ubuntu had a recomendation to use gksudo, not sudo,
> for running graphical programs as root.
> 
> Well, as I wrote in the first post, don't see any point for any of us
> use it (the three ones that have already posted in the thread).
> 
> We don't even use file managers/navigators, but terminals.
> 
> Question would be relevant for heavy graphical interface users or some
> users that build for the family or friends or companies...
> 

I've remembered one possible use: to include in .desktop files and
(don't know yet how), commands, like mount. Perhaps this last use can be
worked around with the Tools/"Open as Root"). I have included
ssh-askpass exactly with the similar objective of using a graphical
password dialogue to execute gparted as administrator without the need
of pkexec.

We have been having many problems with permissions, like ssh-askpass, it
could help.

Pro argument is that it is Qt based and only depends on liblxqt.

Against, I still have the arguments that we already have ssh-askpass and
nobody thought we would need the similar (deprecated?) ones like
gksu(do) and kdesu(do).

-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] More on plasma

[Kenneth Harrison]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Bruce Dubbs  wrote:
> Christian Butcher wrote:
>>
>> Regarding the issue you have with 7 variations of 'Terminal' - I guess
>> that
>> these have below them in smaller, grey letters, variations on 'Konsole',
>> 'Konsole', 'Xterm', etc...
>>
>> If you wanted to switch them to have the application name as the main
>> title, and the 'Description' as the grey, smaller letters (I have no idea
>> why this is not the default...) then you can right click on the 'K' icon
>> in
>> the corner (that opens Kicker, or Kickoff, or whatever) and select
>> Application Launcher Settings, then tick the 'Show applications by name'
>> box.
>
>
> Interesting.  Thanks for the tip.  However there still is a problem if both
> kde4 and kf5 are installed.  Both versions of the terminal are named
> konsole.  In addition, both honor the path so by default there is no way to
> get the "other" one from the menu without modifying at least one of the
> konsole .desktop files.
>
>   -- Bruce
>
> P.S. Please don't top post and trim the message to the relevant section you
> are replying to.
>
>
> --
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

If you're installing both into a system side-by-side with the same names for the
app, then renaming them to something like Konsole-5 and Konsole-4 would be
appropriate for sanity in packages in the .desktop files. It's not
pretty, but it
works.

-Kenny
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] More on plasma

[Bruce Dubbs]

Christian Butcher wrote:

Regarding the issue you have with 7 variations of 'Terminal' - I guess that
these have below them in smaller, grey letters, variations on 'Konsole',
'Konsole', 'Xterm', etc...

If you wanted to switch them to have the application name as the main
title, and the 'Description' as the grey, smaller letters (I have no idea
why this is not the default...) then you can right click on the 'K' icon in
the corner (that opens Kicker, or Kickoff, or whatever) and select
Application Launcher Settings, then tick the 'Show applications by name'
box.


Interesting.  Thanks for the tip.  However there still is a problem if both kde4 and 
kf5 are installed.  Both versions of the terminal are named konsole.  In addition, 
both honor the path so by default there is no way to get the "other" one from the 
menu without modifying at least one of the konsole .desktop files.


  -- Bruce

P.S. Please don't top post and trim the message to the relevant section you are 
replying to.


--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

[blfs-dev] Too many files for Contents section in kf5 and plasma5

[Bruce Dubbs]

I'm trying to finish up plasma.  The only thing left is the Contents.

There are just too many files and directories to list:

  binlib/*.so   -type d
kf553   79   1149
kf5+plasma5   103  118   2061

I did a comparison of just directories and after removing sub-directories, plasma 
installs 209 unique directories.


These numbers are just too big for the book, but I can't think of a good way to 
handle it.  I took the info for kf5 from the systemd book, but that only lists 39 
binaries, so that is incomplete.


I could just omit the entire Contents section, but that seems too extreme.

In addition the kf5 section for libraries and directories is too busy to be 
useful:

  http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/kde/krameworks5.html

Does someone have a suggestion for these two sections?

  -- Bruce


--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] lxqt-sudo

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Well, have been thinking about all this, got news from LXQt [1]
including news from Fedora LXQt [2], and experimented little with
Siduction LXQt, which brings news from Debian unstable.

Decided that it is better to follow upstream and include three packages
that were in the ticket #7081 and I ignored:

lxqt-admin
lxqt-openssh-askpass
lxqt-sudo

I'm reopening the ticket to fix those. The package lxqt-admin is very
good, it allows change of system time fuse and users. The other two,
definitely are wanted for some users afraid of terminals.

My sister and some close to me people come to mind: it is easier to
support them by telephone with "click here click there" because the
respond with very negative interjections, when I try to tell them "open
the terminal". And after I tell the command to use in the terminal, they
ask "and now?" - "as before, press the Enter key". When asked for a
password, "I typed but nothing is appearing" - "It's OK, just press
Enter again".

I apologize for having asked, instead of deciding after a better study.

Thank you very much for the replies, they motivated me to better study
the issue.

Any objections, please?

Now, officially our choice for QTerminal (with QTermWidget) is the
official terminal of LXQT, replacing LXTerminal, and has been
incorporated to the LXQT project, although keeping independent release
cicle [1]. It already was the choice in Fedora LXQt [2]. Before, the
official one was LXTerminal. Next release will be available on
downloads.lxqt.org and it is promised they will be "pushing harder for
fixes and polishing on it" [1].

References:

[1] http://sourceforge.net/p/lxde/mailman/message/34596414/

[2] http://sourceforge.net/p/lxde/mailman/message/34596455/
-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page