Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: Permissions directories
- X-seq: zsh-workers 12031
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Permissions directories
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:34:36 +0000
- In-reply-to: <m24s6mo7a7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <m24s6mo7a7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jun 21, 6:04pm, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
} Subject: Permissions directories
}
} Is there any reason why now the directories in $fpath need to be 755
} and not 775 or 777 ?
Put the following in a file in your $fpath, using a name that starts with
an underscore:
--- 8< --- cut here --- 8< ---
#compdef -p *
_message -r Gotcha!
--- 8< --- cut here --- 8< ---
Do you really want just anyone to be able to drop files into directories
that compinit searches for completion definitions?
This is not so much a problem since compinit is also checking ownership
of the files in those directories. I think it's got the test wrong for
the .zwc files, though -- e.g. if the parent of a directory in $fpath
is writable, I believe under the current tests I could still create a
trojan .zwc file there that would be used in place of the directory of
the same basename.
While I'm on the subject, though, I've been finding a number of problems
with the new compinit. For one thing, the test
(( $+functions[$_i_name] + $_i_wfiles[(I)$_i_file] )) && continue
is a nice idea, but it doesn't work in practice -- the test can't be for
whether the *function* is already defined, it has to be a test for whether
it has already been defined *by compinit*. I don't want the test to fail
if *I've* already explicitly autoloaded a name, I only want it not to
parse the #compdef lines from files of the same name out of two different
directories. I think we need a local assoc or array for this, not the
$functions parameter.
The other problem is that when I answer "y" to the question "there are
insecure directories -- proceed?" I expected that to mean that it would
USE those directories, not ignore them. If it's going to skip those
directories anyway, why bother to ask the question? Giving me a choice
between no directories and half of them is no choice at all; it just
leaves me with a partly-working completion system, which is baffling.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author