On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:13:52 -0500
Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mind taking this off list? As much fun as it is to see two people
> run around in circles blindfolded with pointy sticks, It really
> doesn't belong here.
Would you mind not needlessly quoting ~9KB of text, next time?
Thanks! :)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:13:32 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Use of ((EUID)) is also quicker.
Quicker than what?
Than [[ ${UID} -ne 0 ]] ie the existing code. What did you think the
discussion was about?
Well, I was kind of wondering
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:13:32 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Use of ((EUID)) is also quicker.
> >
> > Quicker than what?
>
> Than [[ ${UID} -ne 0 ]] ie the existing code. What did you think the
> discussion was about?
Well, I was kind of wondering... Because it looked to me like
Steve Long wrote:
>>> Whatever. Requiring root for certain tasks has a long history:
>> On the kernel side.
>>
> Hmm, I'm sure I've used several apps which required root over the years.
They are flawed unless they are things like su/sudo/... . As a fine
example about why is this checking bad, see
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:13:32AM +, Steve Long wrote:
> > And why do you feel the need to comment when you don't know what the
> > eselect die implementation is or how the changes to it introduced in
> > Paludis make it better?
> >
> As stated, I was sharing knowledge and pointing out improv
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:43:49 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Which is just as bad.
>> >
>> No, it's better for the reason given: it doesn't require login as
>> root.
>
> And it's still checking the wrong thing.
>
Be that as it may, if a scriptwriter is c
