[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: KDE and the executable bit
From:       David Faure <faure () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-01-28 14:54:52
Message-ID: 200801281554.53055.faure () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 28 January 2008, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Monday 28 January 2008, you wrote:
> > Le *me* know where to get one *without*.
> 
> You cannot get executables from websites, mail, like you can on Windows, 
> and that is due to the exec bit. This is why it shouldn't be ignored.

We are NOT ignoring it!!! This is really the wrong way of describing the \
issue. Ignoring it would mean that we would execute foo.sh files even if \
they don't have +x -- we do NOT do that. We honor the +x bit on files where \
it makes sense.

We do not consider a JPEG file with the exec bit as executable, because, \
although we "do not ignore +x", we don't either "fully trust +x", which \
would be wrong.

Anyway, replying to another post: I'm not sure about asking for \
confirmation before running. We don't do that for executables either, and \
it would be quite annoying in both cases. But maybe we want to execute \
shellscripts inside a konsole so that the user can see its output; I just \
wrote a script for my wife, and it needed a konsole -e wrapper so that she \
could see the output (but a better wrapper would also not automatically \
close the window when the script is done). Making script execution less \
silent would be good. Making it "are you really really sure" might be a bit \
annoying and inconsistent... unless we also do it for executables, and with \
a dontshowagain checkbox.

-- 
David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]