From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-01-17 15:21:38
|
Hi all, first and foremost, thanks for ROX-Filer; I have been a quite regular user for a few years already, and managed to get it running on all systems I worked with (Linux gentoo, ubuntu, debian, mandriva, fedora), usually under Gnome. However, I had a bit of a hard time to install and run it on a iBook (ubuntu gutsy ppc), finding out that 0launch couldn't find any binary (no kidding) and the ubuntu version is 2.5. 0launch was also unable to load the requirements for compilation from source, so I ended up installing one by one the necessary -dev debs, compile ROX-Filer from source (2.7.1), and added a local feed to zero-install. Is that the way it should be done? Or is there a better way? I now have a zero-install based system, for which some of the thumbnailers for ROX are downloaded from source (I used RAWThumbnail to do an OOThumbnail, Rox-Gnome-Thumbnailer, etc...). Sadly, they don't work because findrox.py is unable to find the zero-installed ROX-Lib2. I fixed findrox.py, so it now does work; however I now need to modify the findrox.py in all thumbnailers, even the ones that are zero-installed (since the .config/rox/Mime-thumbnail/link points to the .cache implementation, of course). Anybody has seen this before, and did I choose the right solution? Thanks, Thierry |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-17 18:14:03
|
On 17/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > Hi all, > > first and foremost, thanks for ROX-Filer; I have been a quite regular user > for a few years already, and managed to get it running on all systems I > worked with (Linux gentoo, ubuntu, debian, mandriva, fedora), usually under > Gnome. > > However, I had a bit of a hard time to install and run it on a iBook (ubuntu > gutsy ppc), finding out that 0launch couldn't find any binary (no kidding) > and the ubuntu version is 2.5. 0launch was also unable to load the > requirements for compilation from source, so I ended up installing one by > one the necessary -dev debs, compile ROX-Filer from source ( 2.7.1), and > added a local feed to zero-install. Is that the way it should be done? Or is > there a better way? Yes, it's normal to have to install a few -dev packages first, and you have to compile the GLib-headers too (which you can do using 0compile). Please publish the feeds you created for GLib-dev and ROX-Filer so it's easier for others in future. Click on the Publish button in the compile boxes, which should get you .tar.bz2 files for GLib-dev and ROX-Filer, and some XML files for them. > I now have a zero-install based system, for which some of the thumbnailers > for ROX are downloaded from source (I used RAWThumbnail to do an > OOThumbnail, Rox-Gnome-Thumbnailer, etc...). Sadly, they don't work because > findrox.py is unable to find the zero-installed ROX-Lib2. I fixed > findrox.py, so it now does work; however I now need to modify the findrox.py > in all thumbnailers, even the ones that are zero-installed (since the > .config/rox/Mime-thumbnail/link points to the .cache implementation, of > course). RAWThumbnail doesn't appear to have a Zero Install feed, so it won't find it (Zero Install software shouldn't interfere with non-Zero Install software). -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-01-17 18:31:38
|
2008/1/17, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > Yes, it's normal to have to install a few -dev packages first, and you > have to compile the GLib-headers too (which you can do using > 0compile). Hum, the -dev packages of ubuntu took care of everything, so no GLib either (I couldn't get the zero install system to compile, so I went the old way) Please publish the feeds you created for GLib-dev and ROX-Filer so > it's easier for others in future. Click on the Publish button in the > compile boxes, which should get you .tar.bz2 files for GLib-dev and > ROX-Filer, and some XML files for them. I'll need someone to host the files for me to be able to do that. RAWThumbnail doesn't appear to have a Zero Install feed, so it won't > find it (Zero Install software shouldn't interfere with non-Zero > Install software). Well, all thumbnailers are in the same case, for me. On both my systems (at work and the iBook), if ROX-Lib2 is only installed by zero-install, thumbnailers like VideoThumbnail (installed by zero-install too) are unable to find ROX-Lib2. A small change to findrox.py solves the problem. Regards, Thierry |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-20 10:40:01
|
On 17/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > 2008/1/17, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > Yes, it's normal to have to install a few -dev packages first, and you > > have to compile the GLib-headers too (which you can do using > > 0compile). > > Hum, the -dev packages of ubuntu took care of everything, so no GLib either > (I couldn't get the zero install system to compile, so I went the old way) What happened when you tried to compile? Did you get an error? We don't use the distribution-provided GLib headers because they tend to be quite new, and compiling against new headers creates a binary that doesn't work on older systems. > > Please publish the feeds you created for GLib-dev and ROX-Filer so > > it's easier for others in future. Click on the Publish button in the > > compile boxes, which should get you .tar.bz2 files for GLib-dev and > > ROX-Filer, and some XML files for them. > > I'll need someone to host the files for me to be able to do that. Sure, we can do that. Click on Publish after compiling. When it asks you for the download directory, use "http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/rox" for ROX-Filer and "http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/zero-install" for GLib-dev It doesn't matter too much if you enter the wrong thing, though; it only affects the XML file generated. > > RAWThumbnail doesn't appear to have a Zero Install feed, so it won't > > find it (Zero Install software shouldn't interfere with non-Zero > > Install software). > > Well, all thumbnailers are in the same case, for me. On both my systems (at > work and the iBook), if ROX-Lib2 is only installed by zero-install, > thumbnailers like VideoThumbnail (installed by zero-install too) are unable > to find ROX-Lib2. A small change to findrox.py solves the problem. That reminded me I was planning to write a blog article about why I created findrox and why I'm now trying to get rid of it! Hopefully this will clarify things a bit: http://roscidus.com/desktop/node/903 -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-01-21 20:27:42
|
2008/1/20, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > On 17/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > > Hum, the -dev packages of ubuntu took care of everything, so no GLib > either > > (I couldn't get the zero install system to compile, so I went the old > way) > > What happened when you tried to compile? Did you get an error? Well, not really an error, except that the zero-install didn't went into download and build just for GLib-dev (to the difference of all other libraries) so I considered it may be an error or a lack of prebuild things for ppc. We don't use the distribution-provided GLib headers because they tend > to be quite new, and compiling against new headers creates a binary > that doesn't work on older systems. Ok. I did the rebuild a few times, and it does work fine... including the part where 0compile reinstall zero-install through zero-install ;-) Sure, we can do that. Click on Publish after compiling. When it asks > you for the download directory, use > > "http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/rox" for ROX-Filer and > "http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/zero-install" for GLib-dev > > It doesn't matter too much if you enter the wrong thing, though; it > only affects the XML file generated. Done. So I now have rox-filer-linux-ppc-2.7.1.tar.bz2 and ROX-Filer-2.7.1.xml, GLib-dev-linux-ppc-2.4.8.tar.bz2 and GLib-dev-2.4.8.xml . Is that the expected result? > Well, all thumbnailers are in the same case, for me. On both my systems > (at > > work and the iBook), if ROX-Lib2 is only installed by zero-install, > > thumbnailers like VideoThumbnail (installed by zero-install too) are > unable > > to find ROX-Lib2. A small change to findrox.py solves the problem. > > That reminded me I was planning to write a blog article about why I > created findrox and why I'm now trying to get rid of it! Hopefully > this will clarify things a bit: > > http://roscidus.com/desktop/node/903 Understood, and probably a good idea (but isn't it already implemented with the requires parts in the xml interfaces?). The only thing there is when a program register itself say as a thumbnailer; when doing it, it links to it's implementation and not to the 0launch proxy; as a consequence, when running, it is unable to find ROX-Lib2. The thumbnail helper link should point to a 0launch command, then. But, as with findrox.py, this means adding into programs dependencies on a specific implementation of zero-install (at least the 0launch command). Not much gain from removing findrox.py! I'll try to see if I can modify one of the thumbnailers to get this to work. Thierry |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-21 20:57:02
|
On 21/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > 2008/1/20, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > On 17/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: [...] > > We don't use the distribution-provided GLib headers because they tend > > to be quite new, and compiling against new headers creates a binary > > that doesn't work on older systems. > > Ok. I did the rebuild a few times, and it does work fine... including the > part where 0compile reinstall zero-install through zero-install ;-) Probably it needed/wanted a newer version of 0launch than the default one on your system, so the system 0launch downloaded a newer copy for 0compile, without disrupting the system version. Clever, eh? > > Sure, we can do that. Click on Publish after compiling. > Done. So I now have rox-filer-linux-ppc-2.7.1.tar.bz2 and > ROX-Filer-2.7.1.xml, GLib-dev-linux-ppc-2.4.8.tar.bz2 and > GLib-dev-2.4.8.xml. > > Is that the expected result? Yes. If you email me the .bz2 files I'll upload them. For the XML files, you need to sign them. This should do it: $ 0alias 0publish http://0install.net/2006/interfaces/0publish $ 0publish --xmlsign --local=GLib-dev-2.4.8.xml GLib-dev.xml \ --set-interface-uri=http://0install.net/2008/linux-ppc/GLib-dev.xml Exported public key as '....gpg' $ 0publish --xmlsign --local=ROX-Filer-2.7.xml ROX-Filer.xml \ --set-interface-uri=http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/linux-ppc/ROX-Filer.xml This creates signed files called ROX-Filer.xml and GLib-dev.xml. Send them to me too, along with the GPG public key it exported. (if you want to host them yourself, adjust the URL to where you'll put them on your servers instead) > > > Well, all thumbnailers are in the same case, for me. > > That reminded me I was planning to write a blog article about why I > > created findrox and why I'm now trying to get rid of it! Hopefully > > this will clarify things a bit: > > > > http://roscidus.com/desktop/node/903 > > Understood, and probably a good idea (but isn't it already implemented with > the requires parts in the xml interfaces?). Yes, it already works. > The only thing there is when a > program register itself say as a thumbnailer; when doing it, it links to > it's implementation and not to the 0launch proxy; as a consequence, when > running, it is unable to find ROX-Lib2. > The thumbnail helper link should point to a 0launch command, then. But, as > with findrox.py, this means adding into programs dependencies on a specific > implementation of zero-install (at least the 0launch command). Not much gain > from removing findrox.py! Well, the problem here is that the thumbnailers are "registering themselves". To do it properly, they should be registered by some other component, of the user's choosing. e.g. when you add ROX-Filer, it's 0alias that creates the 'rox' script, not ROX-Filer. When you use AddApp, AddApp creates the launcher, not the application you added. A thumbnailer is pretty much the perfect example of something that's easy and useful to secure. It needs to read in a stream of data and write out a stream of data. You could even use Linux's seccomp feature if you were careful. It doesn't need to do anything else. Yet, here we are letting them freely modify the user's configuration! (There's also a second problem, in that we run the thumbnailer again for each file. 0launch isn't slow, but running it once-per-thumbnail does add up. Long-term solution is a bit more caching, I think.) -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-01-21 21:48:29
|
2008/1/21, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > Ok. I did the rebuild a few times, and it does work fine... including > the > > part where 0compile reinstall zero-install through zero-install ;-) > > Probably it needed/wanted a newer version of 0launch than the default > one on your system, so the system 0launch downloaded a newer copy for > 0compile, without disrupting the system version. Clever, eh? Not bad, true. Unless they turn out to be incompatible :-( Yes. If you email me the .bz2 files I'll upload them. > > For the XML files, you need to sign them. This should do it: > > $ 0alias 0publish http://0install.net/2006/interfaces/0publish > $ 0publish --xmlsign --local=GLib-dev-2.4.8.xml GLib-dev.xml \ > --set-interface-uri=http://0install.net/2008/linux-ppc/GLib-dev.xml > Exported public key as '....gpg' > $ 0publish --xmlsign --local=ROX-Filer-2.7.xml ROX-Filer.xml \ > --set-interface-uri= > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/linux-ppc/ROX-Filer.xml > > This creates signed files called ROX-Filer.xml and GLib-dev.xml. Send > them to me too, along with the GPG public key it exported. Perfect. It worked fine. Maybe some knowledge to be added to the roscidus wiki? Well, the problem here is that the thumbnailers are "registering > themselves". To do it properly, they should be registered by some > other component, of the user's choosing. e.g. when you add ROX-Filer, > it's 0alias that creates the 'rox' script, not ROX-Filer. When you use > AddApp, AddApp creates the launcher, not the application you added. Maybe the thumbnailer needs to create an alias unto itself, and link to it? A thumbnailer is pretty much the perfect example of something that's > easy and useful to secure. It needs to read in a stream of data and > write out a stream of data. You could even use Linux's seccomp feature > if you were careful. It doesn't need to do anything else. Yet, here we > are letting them freely modify the user's configuration! Yes. But you'll have to trust the modifications too. Additionally, we'll have to check the thumbnailer output to make sure it isn't trying something fishy. And then it could also impersonate another type to hide (or induce the user in running) a dangerous application. (There's also a second problem, in that we run the thumbnailer again > for each file. 0launch isn't slow, but running it once-per-thumbnail > does add up. Long-term solution is a bit more caching, I think.) Hum, using the thumbnailer as a process, sending it commands on stdin until a quit or a break? Would certainly helps for video-thumbnails. Thierry |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-21 22:47:39
|
On 21/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > 2008/1/21, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > > Ok. I did the rebuild a few times, and it does work fine... including > the > > > part where 0compile reinstall zero-install through zero-install ;-) > > > > Probably it needed/wanted a newer version of 0launch than the default > > one on your system, so the system 0launch downloaded a newer copy for > > 0compile, without disrupting the system version. Clever, eh? > > Not bad, true. Unless they turn out to be incompatible :-( They *are* incompatible. That's why it downloads the extra one: one for 0compile, one for the rest of the system :-) The dependencies of one program (e.g. 0compile) don't affect anything else on the system (except that if something else also wanted the same version, they'll share, but it's the same effect as being fully independent, just more efficient). > > Yes. If you email me the .bz2 files I'll upload them. [...] > > This creates signed files called ROX-Filer.xml and GLib-dev.xml. Send > > them to me too, along with the GPG public key it exported. > Perfect. It worked fine. Maybe some knowledge to be added to the roscidus > wiki? OK, I've uploaded them all! Now when you try to compile from source on a clean PPC system, you shouldn't have to compile GLib-dev first: http://0install.net/2008/linux-ppc/GLib-dev.xml I spotted a problem with the ROX-Filer XML, though (my fault; sorry!). Could you do this: $ 0publish -e ROX-Filer.xml Change the <group> line to have a "main" attribute: <group arch="Linux-ppc" main="ROX-Filer/AppRun"> You might also want to change the text to say that it's a PPC binary, not the source. I'll try to get this bug fixed for 2.8! However, you should still be able to test it, like this: $ 0launch --main=ROX-Filer/AppRun \ http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/linux-ppc/ROX-Filer.xml > > Well, the problem here is that the thumbnailers are "registering > > themselves". To do it properly, they should be registered by some > > other component, of the user's choosing. e.g. when you add ROX-Filer, > > it's 0alias that creates the 'rox' script, not ROX-Filer. When you use > > AddApp, AddApp creates the launcher, not the application you added. > > Maybe the thumbnailer needs to create an alias unto itself, and link to it? I was thinking something like the 'Set Run Action' process: - User right-clicks on an image and chooses 'Set Thumbnailer' from the menu. - Drags thumbnailer from web-page to dialog box. Of course, all the common formats should be in ROX-Defaults so normally you wouldn't have to do anything. But, ideally it should be either ROX-Filer or ROX-Defaults that sets things up, not the thumbnailer. > > A thumbnailer is pretty much the perfect example of something that's > > easy and useful to secure. It needs to read in a stream of data and > > write out a stream of data. You could even use Linux's seccomp feature > > if you were careful. It doesn't need to do anything else. Yet, here we > > are letting them freely modify the user's configuration! > > Yes. But you'll have to trust the modifications too. Additionally, we'll > have to check the thumbnailer output to make sure it isn't trying something > fishy. And then it could also impersonate another type to hide (or induce > the user in running) a dangerous application. Assuming the filer tells it the size it wants and the output is a series of (width x height) RGB triplets, there's not much that it can do. Every possible output of the expected length is valid. If it provides too much output the filer will just stop reading; too little and the filer will ignore it. Shouldn't be impossible to get it right. > > (There's also a second problem, in that we run the thumbnailer again > > for each file. 0launch isn't slow, but running it once-per-thumbnail > > does add up. Long-term solution is a bit more caching, I think.) > > Hum, using the thumbnailer as a process, sending it commands on stdin until > a quit or a break? Would certainly helps for video-thumbnails. You have to cope with multiple different thumbnailers running at once, but it certainly could work. Thanks! -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-01-22 17:24:54
|
2008/1/21, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > $ 0publish -e ROX-Filer.xml > > Change the <group> line to have a "main" attribute: > > <group arch="Linux-ppc" main="ROX-Filer/AppRun"> > > You might also want to change the text to say that it's a PPC binary, > not the source. I'll try to get this bug fixed for 2.8! I did that. Should I send you the new key and xml file? However, you should still be able to test it, like this: > > $ 0launch --main=ROX-Filer/AppRun \ > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/linux-ppc/ROX-Filer.xml I'll create a new user and test all this to see if it works. I was thinking something like the 'Set Run Action' process: > > - User right-clicks on an image and chooses 'Set Thumbnailer' from the > menu. > - Drags thumbnailer from web-page to dialog box. > > Of course, all the common formats should be in ROX-Defaults so > normally you wouldn't have to do anything. But, ideally it should be > either ROX-Filer or ROX-Defaults that sets things up, not the > thumbnailer. Any way is fine to me, being that one of the advantages of doing so is the simplicity and the ability of doing it more than one way. Assuming the filer tells it the size it wants and the output is a > series of (width x height) RGB triplets, there's not much that it can > do. Every possible output of the expected length is valid. If it > provides too much output the filer will just stop reading; too little > and the filer will ignore it. Shouldn't be impossible to get it right. Well, I would still consider it potentially insecure, due to the fact it's creating end-user objects which may induce him in error regarding the file type. But I guess it can't be avoided. You have to cope with multiple different thumbnailers running at once, > but it certainly could work. I'll make a try inside the thumbnailer itself. Main thumbnailer process stays awake for a while, thumbnailer helper starts main if none, send command to main if already up. Main thumbnailer process goes down if no request for a while. Need time to do IPC in python! Thierry |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-23 20:07:18
|
On 22/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > 2008/1/21, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > $ 0publish -e ROX-Filer.xml > > > > Change the <group> line to have a "main" attribute: > > > > <group arch="Linux-ppc" main="ROX-Filer/AppRun"> > > > > You might also want to change the text to say that it's a PPC binary, > > not the source. I'll try to get this bug fixed for 2.8! > > I did that. Should I send you the new key and xml file? Just the XML file, please. The key should be the same. [ untrusted thumbnailers ] > > Assuming the filer tells it the size it wants and the output is a > > series of (width x height) RGB triplets, there's not much that it can > > do. Every possible output of the expected length is valid. If it > > provides too much output the filer will just stop reading; too little > > and the filer will ignore it. Shouldn't be impossible to get it right. > > Well, I would still consider it potentially insecure, due to the fact it's > creating end-user objects which may induce him in error regarding the file > type. But I guess it can't be avoided. Perhaps. But to attack it, you'd need to do this: 1) Get the user to associate a file type with a "dangerous" application. e.g. associate (non-executable) Python files with the Python interpreter, rather than with a text editor (all defaults should be "safe" actions). 2) Get the user to associate the file type with your thumbnailer ("check out this cool python thumbnailer!"), which should make certain malicious files look like text files. 3) Send the user a malicious Python file called "README" and hope they click on it. Probably, you should never do (1). If you want to execute something, mark it as executable (and it will appear in green to show this, which the thumbnailer can't override). -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-23 20:40:00
|
On 23/01/2008, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote: > On 22/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: [ ROX-Filer PPC] > > I did that. Should I send you the new key and xml file? > > Just the XML file, please. The key should be the same. OK, it's uploaded! Could someone on linux-ppc please try it? This command should get the latest version and run it: $ 0launch -r http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer Thanks Thierry! -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-01-24 19:22:11
|
2008/1/23, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > OK, it's uploaded! Could someone on linux-ppc please try it? > > This command should get the latest version and run it: > > $ 0launch -r http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer Hi, tried with a second user on my iBook, and didn't find the ppc binary. There is a http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/linux-ppc/ROX-Filer.xml, but it's greyed out, and there isn't any description or signature. It's also listed as ppc64. I tried a compile on ROX-Filer, and it did find the GLib-dev for ppc all fine (with my key, etc...) but there was a small error when doing cancel: WARNING:root:Missing <feed-for> for ' http://0install.net/2006/interfaces/GLib-dev' in ' http://0install.net/2008/linux-ppc/GLib-dev.xml' Guess I should spend some time on 0install.net to read the complete handbook of zeroinstall. Thierry |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-26 15:12:22
|
On 24/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > > 2008/1/23, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > OK, it's uploaded! Could someone on linux-ppc please try it? > > > > This command should get the latest version and run it: > > > > $ 0launch -r > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer > > Hi, > > tried with a second user on my iBook, and didn't find the ppc binary. There > is a > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/linux-ppc/ROX-Filer.xml , > but it's greyed out, and there isn't any description or signature. It's also > listed as ppc64. Oops. I copied the previous ppc line. Will be fixed once sf.net shell access is available again. > I tried a compile on ROX-Filer, and it did find the GLib-dev for ppc all > fine (with my key, etc...) but there was a small error when doing cancel: > > WARNING:root:Missing <feed-for> for > 'http://0install.net/2006/interfaces/GLib-dev' in ' > http://0install.net/2008/linux-ppc/GLib-dev.xml' Sorry, my instructions were slightly wrong. The signing commands like this: 0publish --xmlsign --local=GLib-dev-2.4.8.xml GLib-dev.xml \ --set-interface-uri=http://0install.net/2008/linux-ppc/GLib-dev.xml Should have been: cp GLib-dev-2.4.8.xml GLib-dev.xml 0publish --xmlsign GLib-dev.xml \ --set-interface-uri=http://0install.net/2008/linux-ppc/GLib-dev.xml That would have left the <feed-for> intact. It's only a warning, though. I might remove the warning in the next version. If you want to put it in, just do $ 0publish -e GLib-dev.xml and copy the <feed-for> line from the other XML file into that one. The command I gave should instead be used to add extra versions in future (e.g. if you want to add a binary for ROX-Filer 2.8). I should update the publish command to do all this automatically... -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-01-27 14:24:08
|
On 26/01/2008, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote: > On 24/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > > > > 2008/1/23, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: [...] > > > $ 0launch -r > > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer > > > > Hi, > > > > tried with a second user on my iBook, and didn't find the ppc binary. There > > is a > > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/linux-ppc/ROX-Filer.xml , > > but it's greyed out, and there isn't any description or signature. It's also > > listed as ppc64. > > Oops. I copied the previous ppc line. Will be fixed once sf.net shell > access is available again. OK, it should work now! $ 0launch -r http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-01-28 18:05:24
|
2008/1/27, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > On 26/01/2008, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote: > OK, it should work now! > > $ 0launch -r http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer It does. Thanks for the linux ppc rox users out there! Should I register for the role of ppc binary builder? Thierry |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-02-02 19:50:04
|
On 28/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > 2008/1/27, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > On 26/01/2008, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote: > > OK, it should work now! > > > > $ 0launch -r > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer > > > It does. Thanks for the linux ppc rox users out there! > > Should I register for the role of ppc binary builder? Consider yourself registered ;-) Cheers! -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-02-03 12:36:54
|
On 02/02/2008, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote: > On 28/01/2008, Thierry Goubier <thi...@gm...> wrote: > > 2008/1/27, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > > On 26/01/2008, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote: > > > OK, it should work now! > > > > > > $ 0launch -r > > http://rox.sourceforge.net/2005/interfaces/ROX-Filer > > > > > > It does. Thanks for the linux ppc rox users out there! > > > > Should I register for the role of ppc binary builder? > > Consider yourself registered ;-) Just to confirm, this is your GPG key, correct? 520DCCDBE5D38E2B22ADD82672E5E2ACF037FFC4 Do you have a sf.net username? -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thierry G. <thi...@gm...> - 2008-02-03 23:29:37
|
Hi, 2008/2/3, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...>: > > Just to confirm, this is your GPG key, correct? > > 520DCCDBE5D38E2B22ADD82672E5E2ACF037FFC4 Yes. That's the fingerprint of my key. Do you have a sf.net username? No. Thierry -- > Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net > GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > rox-users mailing list > rox...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rox-users > |