[users] Request and a bug: gksu
Todd And Margo Chester
toddandmargo at gmail.com
Mon Jun 6 21:06:48 CEST 2011
On 06/06/2011 05:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Todd And Margo Chester
> <toddandmargo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay now a bug to report: Since you did not have SL6
>> RPMs for gksu, I installed your el5 versions on my
>> new SL6 x64 bit server:
> As has been stated, this is a bad route to go down for several reasons.
No one actually stated the reasons.
Using older piece of code is a problem, why? Everything in Enterprise
Linux is old. That is the idea. Why would this particular piece of
be an issue and the thousands of other pieces of older code in EL
not be a problem? I do not understand. (Out-of-date Firefox drives me
>> Problem: I got a crash saying gksu could not find
>> Work around:
>> mkdir /usr/lib/libgksu
>> ln -s /usr/lib64/libgksu/gksu-run-helper
>> So the 64 bit version is still looking in the 32 bit location
>> for gksu-run-helper
> Does it do this on the el5 version? because that's just about the only
> way this could be considered a bug. Something behaving incorrectly on
> el6 when it's built for el5 isn't exactly shocking.
I would think that the paths are hard coded in the package. So, I would
also think they would behave exactly the same in el5 as el6. Not "shocking"
at all. Do the paths somehow float around depending on the revision of
the kernel? Am I mistaken? Is there some dependancy statement:
I would presume the path to gksu-run-helper was simply
hard coded. What am I missing?
This is from a 64 bit CentOS 5.6 server I also administer. I had to place
the same link to compensate for the 32 bit path in a 64 bit package.
# uname -a
Linux server.xxx.local 2.6.18-238.9.1.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 12 18:10:13 EDT
2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
# rpm -qa *\gksu\*
# ls -al /usr/lib/libgksu
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 5 2009 .
drwxr-xr-x 78 root root 36864 May 10 15:13 ..
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 34 Dec 5 2009 gksu-run-helper ->
So, yes, it reproduces on el5. Now that is "shocking". Not really. :-)
More information about the users