I am wondering about is the nature of the problems with ZClasses that
led to their deprecation. If I move a 2.5.1 installation to 2.11, are
my several existing ZClass-based products going to break in any known
way I should be aware of? Should I consider a last-known-good upgrade
target instead?
You need to check to see if said user has that role on the object in
question. getRoles is only going to show you roles assigned in the User
Folder, not local roles.
This code is doing a similar thing on my site, with a different role:
dtml-if expr=_.SecurityGetUser().has_role('Development
I just wanted to give a quick summary of Bug Day June 2002, and get
people thinking about July 2002 a little sooner so maybe more people can
make it. Yeah, I know there were a lot of things going on this time
around...
Anyway, we fixed #151, #72, #6, #402, #79, #272, #409, #312, and #432,
Brian Lloyd wrote:
We are planning to have the inaugural bug day this
Friday (April 12th) from around 9 a.m. US /Eastern
until we've all had enough :^)
Sounds good.
Make it #zope-dev, as nothing ever happens there :-)
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids wrote:
This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
grand unified Zope installation and control
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Let's get a discussion
started to define 2.6.
This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
grand unified
The TTW Product distribution tab is not compliant with
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/FinishedProductGuidelines.
Products/..., not lib/python/Products/... is what it should be doing.
The attached patch makes it so.
Incidentally, where are we supposed to be sending patches?
Clark OBrien wrote:
Hi all
I have written some code to alow a user to change his password (below)
The problem is that after executing this code the login dialog pops up.
The login requires the user to enter his NEW password.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Basic
R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Martijn Pieters wrote:
First, actually, untarring as root sets the ownership of a lot of the
stuff in my solaris bindist to 506:100 (brian:users, it says in the
listing.)
Default behaviour when using tar as root; it'll preserve the UID and GID of
I have a patch in hand that addresses MOST of the issues I brought up,
but the biggie (tricking root into killing arbitrary processes) is a
hard one to solve. I have many options, and I'd like opinions...
Right now, the pid file is written out by the user that ZServer drops to
after
I opted for #2, since it requires no changes to existing start/stop scripts.
2. Enforce the sticky bit on the var directory. From Solaris' chmod(2)
manpage:
If a directory is writable and has S_ISVTX (the sticky bit)
set, files within that directory can be removed or
I opted for #2, since it requires no changes to existing start/stop scripts.
2. Enforce the sticky bit on the var directory. From Solaris' chmod(2)
manpage:
If a directory is writable and has S_ISVTX (the sticky bit)
set, files within that directory can be removed or
if it was going to be problematic for anyone having to rush to get fixes
out in the face of details.
Incidentally, as far as snipped portions go, it can be safely assumed
I'm in agreement with you.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 01:12:33PM -0400, Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids wrote:
Files should
13 matches
Mail list logo
