January 2006 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

re: sudo vs su in wineinstall

by Dan Kegel

Let's simply delete the wineinstall script. It's not really needed anymore, it was just there for compatibility. People have been talking about doing it for some time: http://winehq.org/site/?issue=227#Nuking%20Wineinstall perhaps now's the time. - Dan -- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv

Jan. 30, 2006

Re: sudo vs su in wineinstall

by James Hawkins

On 1/29/06, n0dalus <n0dalus+redhat(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/30/06, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If the user is not in the /etc/sudoers configuration file, it just > > complains you're not in the configuration and asks for the root > > password. > > > > /etc/sudoers is not usually world-readable. The way to do it would be > with `sudo -l`, but this requires the user's password, and we'd have > to parse any fine-grained security options. > I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. We don't check /etc/sudoers for the user's configuration. If the user is not in /etc/sudoers and the user runs sudo, the sudo program complains that the user is not in the configuration and asks for the root password. -- James Hawkins

Jan. 30, 2006

Re: sudo vs su in wineinstall

by n0dalus

On 1/30/06, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If the user is not in the /etc/sudoers configuration file, it just > complains you're not in the configuration and asks for the root > password. > /etc/sudoers is not usually world-readable. The way to do it would be with `sudo -l`, but this requires the user's password, and we'd have to parse any fine-grained security options. Is there another way of checking to see if su(do) works? I still think a good way would be to have the script run as root and execute a child process as a non-root user for compiling and stuff. The problem is working out what user to run as. Alternatively, we could just split wineinstall into winecompile and wineinstall. n0dalus.

Jan. 30, 2006

Re: sudo vs su in wineinstall

by James Hawkins

On 1/29/06, Tom Spear (Dustin Booker, Dustin Navea) <speeddymon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, bug 4439 describes a problem where a machine (running ubuntu) > does not install wine when using wineinstall due to the fact that su dos > not work.. > > Just a couple of questions: > > Is this the case (su not working) on all Ubuntu machines, or just > something broken on that users' machine? > I believe it's a distro-specific design choice (for security) of Ubuntu, and maybe even Debian. > If it is the case on all Ubuntu machines, the user has mentioned that > sudo does work. sudo does require configuration prior to being used, > but we could always add into the wineinstall script to configure sudo > for the user, or we could ask the user to configure it themself, OR we > could fall back to using su if the user answers no to having used > sudo.. see below: > If the user is not in the /etc/sudoers configuration file, it just complains you're not in the configuration and asks for the root password. > > What do you think guys? > I think we should see if su exists/works and use it if it does, else use sudo. -- James Hawkins

Jan. 30, 2006

Re: sudo vs su in wineinstall

by n0dalus

On 1/30/06, Tom Spear (Dustin Booker, Dustin Navea) <speeddymon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, bug 4439 describes a problem where a machine (running ubuntu) > does not install wine when using wineinstall due to the fact that su dos > not work.. > > Just a couple of questions: > > Is this the case (su not working) on all Ubuntu machines, or just > something broken on that users' machine? I think Ubuntu comes without a set root password. This is to try to dumb down the idea of having a root user (just my take on it). > If it is the case on all Ubuntu machines, the user has mentioned that > sudo does work. sudo does require configuration prior to being used, > but we could always add into the wineinstall script to configure sudo > for the user, or we could ask the user to configure it themself, OR we > could fall back to using su if the user answers no to having used > sudo.. see below: Configuring or requiring an allow-everything sudo for people is a bad idea, as it weakens security on the machine. What would be much better and simpler for the user, is if you had to start the wineinstall script as root (using su, sudo, whatever is appropriate for the distribution/setup) and it would run a seperate process as a non-root user to perform the compiling, etc, and bits that need root would be run by the wineinstall script directly. n0dalus.

Jan. 30, 2006

sudo vs su in wineinstall

by Tom Spear (Dustin Booker, Dustin Navea)

Hi guys, bug 4439 describes a problem where a machine (running ubuntu) does not install wine when using wineinstall due to the fact that su dos not work.. Just a couple of questions: Is this the case (su not working) on all Ubuntu machines, or just something broken on that users' machine? If it is the case on all Ubuntu machines, the user has mentioned that sudo does work. sudo does require configuration prior to being used, but we could always add into the wineinstall script to configure sudo for the user, or we could ask the user to configure it themself, OR we could fall back to using su if the user answers no to having used sudo.. see below: ./tools/wineinstall Warning: the wineinstall script installs wine using the sudo command. Have you ever used sudo on this machine before? if (yes) continue as normal else # either of these could work # option 1 Would you like to have us try to configure sudo for you? # option 2 User has not used or configured sudo, falling back to su WARNING: su may be broken on your machine, and therefore wine may be built but not installed. If you are unable to run wine after this script completes, please login as root, and do 'make install' then login as your user again. Of course we could always just add a configure check to see if su works, and if it doesnt, die with a warning about wineinstall not working because of that. What do you think guys? Tom

Jan. 30, 2006

Re: Startup time of OOo2, Firefox 1.5. Some surprises.

by Dan Kegel

On 1/29/06, n0dalus <n0dalus+wine(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Very interesting. Keep in mind that the FC5t2 kernels and libraries > currently have some debugging stuff enabled that might have a big > effect in these tests. The few bits I've verified in Ubuntu 05.10 are the same as in FC5t2, so perhaps that isn't a problem. I'll do future measurements in Ubuntu, probably. There are some rendering problems in Firefox; to see them, run firefox 1.5 under wine, then log in to gmail.com; you'll see black streaks to the left of the text entry areas. Firefox also seems to render slowly; it's tempting to run wine under oprofile and see if that finds the bottleneck. cf. http://www.winehq.com/?issue=249#oprofile%20&%20Wine - Dan -- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv

Jan. 30, 2006

Re: Startup time of OOo2, Firefox 1.5. Some surprises.

by n0dalus

On 1/30/06, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > To see how reasonable it might be to use OOo 2.0.1 and Firefox 1.5 > under Wine routinely, I benchmarked their startup time > on a Fedora Core 5 test 2 system under four conditions: > native vs. with wine from cvs, and with 416MB RAM vs. 96 MB RAM > (by booting with mem=96M; this was to simulate running on > one of those cheapo 128MB boxes that uses shared video RAM). > This was on a zippy Compaq Presario 3000 Athlon 64 3000+. > All apps were downloaded from openoffice.org and mozilla.com. Very interesting. Keep in mind that the FC5t2 kernels and libraries currently have some debugging stuff enabled that might have a big effect in these tests. You should think about posting these results to the fedora-devel or fedora-test list. n0dalus.

Jan. 30, 2006

Startup time of OOo2, Firefox 1.5. Some surprises.

by Dan Kegel

To see how reasonable it might be to use OOo 2.0.1 and Firefox 1.5 under Wine routinely, I benchmarked their startup time on a Fedora Core 5 test 2 system under four conditions: native vs. with wine from cvs, and with 416MB RAM vs. 96 MB RAM (by booting with mem=96M; this was to simulate running on one of those cheapo 128MB boxes that uses shared video RAM). This was on a zippy Compaq Presario 3000 Athlon 64 3000+. All apps were downloaded from openoffice.org and mozilla.com. Results for first run of app after booting (1st column is startup time): 5 Firefox run1 native 416MB 12 Firefox run1 wine 416MB 11 Firefox run1 native 96MB 15 Firefox run1 wine 96MB 11 ooo run1 native 416MB 15 ooo run1 wine 416MB 60 ooo run1 native 96MB 37 ooo run1 wine 96MB So wine is 1.4 to 2.5 times slower at app startup generally, but when ram is really short, win32 openoffice starts up with wine 1.5 times *faster* than the native linux version! (Maybe because the Microsoft tools are better at avoiding I/O or relocations during loading?) I then measured how long it took to start up the app the second time, when the cache was nice and hot: 3 Firefox run2 native 416MB 4 Firefox run2 wine 416MB 4 ooo run2 native 416MB 6 ooo run2 wine 416MB 4 Firefox run2 native 96MB 6 Firefox run2 wine 96MB 36 ooo run2 native 96MB 28 ooo run2 wine 96MB The times are uniformly faster on the second run, but the patter holds, i.e. wine is 1.4-1.5 times slower than native generally, but win32 openoffice under wine is 1.5 times *faster* than the native version when starved for RAM. - Dan -- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv

Jan. 30, 2006

Re: [patch] updated riched20 conformance test

by Phil Krylov

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:23:09 -0800 Thomas Kho <tkho(a)ucla.edu> wrote: > Attached is a small patch to add a riched20 conformance test. I think it's a good test, but I'd add "flags %08x",...flags to the failing test messages, because all these failures are due to unimplemented flags. And probably the message names should be printed as well... -- Ph.

Jan. 29, 2006