Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: Permissions directories
- X-seq: zsh-workers 12033
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Permissions directories
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:07:09 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:34:36 +0000
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.
Digest files are not used automatically, they have to be named in
$fpath. The patch makes zwc be not excluded for testing purposes.
> 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.
Right, the patch does that, too.
> 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.
Oh. Right, too. Or should we give that as a choice at the prompt
(don't use/use/ignore)?
Bye
Sven
Index: Completion/Core/compinit
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/zsh/zsh/Completion/Core/compinit,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 compinit
--- Completion/Core/compinit 2000/06/20 07:15:39 1.5
+++ Completion/Core/compinit 2000/06/22 11:06:37
@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@
typeset _i_q
_i_wdirs=( ${^fpath}(Nf:g+w:,f:o+w:,^u0u${EUID}) )
- _i_wfiles=( ${^~fpath:/.}/^([^_]*|*~|*.zwc)(N^u0u${EUID}) )
+ _i_wfiles=( ${^~fpath:/.}/^([^_]*|*~)(N^u0u${EUID}) )
case "${#_i_wdirs}:${#_i_wfiles}" in
0:0) _i_q= ;;
@@ -358,16 +358,20 @@
esac
if [[ -n "$_i_q" ]]; then
- if [[ "$_i_fail" = ask ]] &&
- ! read -q "?There are insecure $_i_q, continue [yn]? "; then
- unfunction compinit compdef
- unset _comp_dumpfile _comp_secure compprefuncs comppostfuncs \
- _comps _patcomps _postpatcomps _compautos _lastcomp
-
- return 1
+ if [[ "$_i_fail" = ask ]]; then
+ if ! read -q "?There are insecure $_i_q, continue [yn]? "; then
+ unfunction compinit compdef
+ unset _comp_dumpfile _comp_secure compprefuncs comppostfuncs \
+ _comps _patcomps _postpatcomps _compautos _lastcomp
+
+ return 1
+ fi
+ _i_wfiles=()
+ _i_wdirs=()
+ else
+ (( $#_i_wfiles )) && _i_files=( "${(@)_i_files:#(${(j:|:)_i_wfiles})}" )
+ (( $#_i_wdirs )) && _i_files=( "${(@)_i_files:#(${(j:|:)_i_wdirs})/*}" )
fi
- (( $#_i_wfiles )) && _i_files=( "${(@)_i_files:#(${(j:|:)_i_wfiles})}" )
- (( $#_i_wdirs )) && _i_files=( "${(@)_i_files:#(${(j:|:)_i_wdirs})/*}" )
fi
_comp_secure=yes
fi
@@ -393,12 +397,15 @@
fi
fi
if [[ -z "$_i_done" ]]; then
+ typeset -A _i_test
+
for _i_dir in $fpath; do
[[ $_i_dir = . ]] && continue
(( $_i_wdirs[(I)$_i_dir] )) && continue
for _i_file in $_i_dir/^([^_]*|*~|*.zwc)(N); do
_i_name="${_i_file:t}"
- (( $+functions[$_i_name] + $_i_wfiles[(I)$_i_file] )) && continue
+ (( $+_i_test[$_i_name] + $_i_wfiles[(I)$_i_file] )) && continue
+ _i_test[$_i_name]=yes
read -rA _i_line < $_i_file
_i_tag=$_i_line[1]
shift _i_line
--
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author