From: Karol K. <mi...@in...> - 2006-03-27 13:48:07
|
Hi again, I often chmod -R 775 /some/dir even though docs and music is there. Then I need Options->Types->Ignore exec bits for known extensions turned on to have mime work correctly. So I turn Ignore on. Then I get errors from application/x-shellscripts: You need to "configure the action". I get this from firefox or OOo when clicking on them on my pinboard. So I set the action: sh "$@" Then I can not drop objects on ff or OOo icons (they are shellscripts). Is this how it works, or am I misconfiguring my desktop? thanks in advance, Karol |
From: Musus U. <mu...@ve...> - 2006-03-27 15:11:29
|
On Monday 27 March 2006 14:48, Karol Krenski wrote: > Hi again, > I often chmod -R 775 /some/dir even though docs and music is there. Presumably you want the directories to be 775 but the files to be 664? How about: chmod -R 664 /some/dir find /some/dir -type d -exec chmod 775 {} \; (If you expect a lot of 'hits' with the find,, maybe use something like xargs for better efficiency). Not actually an answer to your question, I know... but maybe a way to avoid the problem :) TTFN, Adny -- Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn | Personal: ad...@ve... kann man uns am Himmel sehn | Techie: mu...@ve... wir haben Angst und sind allein | WWW: verelanthe.co.uk/musus/ Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein! | UT: adn...@go... -- Rammstein / Engel |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2006-03-27 17:29:56
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:48:09 +0200, Karol Krenski wrote: > Hi again, > > I often chmod -R 775 /some/dir even though docs and music is there. If you just want to make directories searchable (without affecting files), use: chmod -R +X /some/dir (upper-case "X") > Then I need Options->Types->Ignore exec bits for known extensions turned on > to have mime work correctly. That options isn't needed anymore (it was removed 16-Jul-2005). Try upgrading (type 'rox --versions' and click on Refresh if you use the injector). HTH, -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Karol K. <mi...@in...> - 2006-03-27 19:57:03
|
> > I often chmod -R 775 /some/dir even though docs and music is there. >=20 > If you just want to make directories searchable (without affecting > files), use: >=20 > chmod -R +X /some/dir (upper-case "X") Thanks for both answers. I knew about find, but that's long to type. chmod -R +X is news to me - seems faster. > > Then I need Options->Types->Ignore exec bits for known extensions tur= ned on > > to have mime work correctly. >=20 > That options isn't needed anymore (it was removed 16-Jul-2005). Is it supposed to mean that +x files should *always* have the correct mime icons displayed - no matter if the option is on/off? Setting the option to off causes that there's just one exec-icon for all +x pdfs, mp3s, pngs and others. rox version seems pretty fresh: [mimooh@wszafie ~]$ rpm -q rox rox-2.2.0-2 [mimooh@wszafie ~]$ rox --version ROX-Filer=20 Copyright (C) 2005 Thomas Leonard. ROX-Filer comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. You may redistribute copies of ROX-Filer under the terms of the GNU General Public License. For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING. Skompilowane z GTK w wersji 2.6.7 Uruchomione z GTK w wersji 2.8.11 -- Compilation time -- Obs=B3uga wielkich plik=F3w... Tak Biblioteka GNOME-VFS... Tak Dnotify support... Tak Binary compatibility... No (apsymbols.h not found) -------------- I performed such operations: 1. rm -rf ~/.rox; I can see [x] Ignore the exec bit (that's default) 2. rox -p=3Dnew 3. dragged /usr/local/firefox/firefox to the pinboard=20 4. click on it - it says x-shellscript action is not set. I can not drop files on my firefox icon at this stage 5. I define the action:=20 sh "$@" firefox starts, but I still can't drop icons on it. So there's just a problem with dropping files on my x-shellscripts - that doesn't work. I can leave without that functionality, just curious if this is how it should work. thanks, Karol |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2006-03-27 21:51:20
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:56:57 +0200, Karol Krenski wrote: [...] >> > Then I need Options->Types->Ignore exec bits for known extensions turned on >> > to have mime work correctly. >> >> That options isn't needed anymore (it was removed 16-Jul-2005). > Is it supposed to mean that +x files should *always* have the correct > mime icons displayed - no matter if the option is on/off? Yes. It now looks at whether the MIME type can be executable. So, a JPEG image with X set will ignore the X bit (JPEGs are never executable), whereas a Python script will use it. > rox version seems pretty fresh: > > [mimooh@wszafie ~]$ rpm -q rox > rox-2.2.0-2 No, that's more than a year old: $ rox -v ROX-Filer 2.4.1 I think handling of the X bit changed in 2.3. -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Karol K. <mi...@in...> - 2006-03-27 21:59:04
|
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:51:08PM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:56:57 +0200, Karol Krenski wrote: > [...] > >> > Then I need Options->Types->Ignore exec bits for known extensions > >> > turned on > >> > to have mime work correctly. > >> > >> That options isn't needed anymore (it was removed 16-Jul-2005). > > Is it supposed to mean that +x files should *always* have the > > correct > > mime icons displayed - no matter if the option is on/off? > > Yes. It now looks at whether the MIME type can be executable. So, a > JPEG > image with X set will ignore the X bit (JPEGs are never executable), > whereas a Python script will use it. > > > rox version seems pretty fresh: > > > > [mimooh@wszafie ~]$ rpm -q rox > > rox-2.2.0-2 > > No, that's more than a year old: > > $ rox -v > ROX-Filer 2.4.1 That explains things then... Thanks, Karol |
From: Brandin C. <cha...@ya...> - 2006-03-28 15:50:36
|
--- Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> wrote: > Yes. It now looks at whether the MIME type can be executable. So, a JPEG > image with X set will ignore the X bit (JPEGs are never executable) Any file can be executable, especially when using the binfmt_misc kernel module. For the JPEG example--your picture viewer can be associated with JPEG files and thus they will be executable just like a program. For a more practical example, DOS/Windows programs can be made to run Wine. A more general solution to this problem is to turn off the executable bit on the files you don't want executable. ROX's "Ignore exec bit" option is merely a workaround for users who aren't mounting their non-UNIX filesystems with exec turned off. Making the option mandatory (no switch-off in the options) is a poor decision. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2006-03-28 19:00:15
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:50:27 -0800, Brandin Creech wrote: > --- Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> wrote: > >> Yes. It now looks at whether the MIME type can be executable. So, a JPEG >> image with X set will ignore the X bit (JPEGs are never executable) > > Any file can be executable, especially when using the binfmt_misc kernel > module. For the JPEG example--your picture viewer can be associated with JPEG > files and thus they will be executable just like a program. For a more > practical example, DOS/Windows programs can be made to run Wine. Then mark JPEGs as executable in the MIME database, and ROX-Filer will treat them that way. Of course, you'll get a cog logo for all your images, and all the text will be green for 'executable' (just as before the removal of the option). I don't see how you can easily make this secure. Right now, there are two types of item: - black text: normal file, icon shows MIME type, executing will run the program you chose for that type - green text: executable, icon chosen by program (not trust-worthy), executing will run whatever code the item contains If you get ROX-Filer to always execute images using execve(), then you won't be able to tell the difference between an image that will load with your preferred handler, and one which will execute some dodgy shell script, because that decision will be made by the kernel, not by ROX-Filer. Why is moving all this to the kernel is helpful? Mostly, people try to move as much of this logic as possible *out* of the kernel. -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Musus U. <mu...@ve...> - 2006-03-28 01:05:13
|
On Monday 27 March 2006 20:56, Karol Krenski wrote: > chmod -R +X is news to me - seems faster. Heheh - was news to me too, still the day I stop learning new things is the day I get bored ;) TBH, I often find myself having to strip the execute bit from files (copied from windows shares, etc) but want to set it on the directories so the combination of 664 followed by +X looks best for me :) TTFN, Adny -- Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn | Personal: ad...@ve... kann man uns am Himmel sehn | Techie: mu...@ve... wir haben Angst und sind allein | WWW: verelanthe.co.uk/musus/ Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein! | UT: adn...@go... -- Rammstein / Engel |