Le Dimanche 1 Janvier 2006 23:02, Christian Neumair a écrit : > Am Freitag, den 30.12.2005, 15:07 +0000 schrieb Alan Horkan: > > I'm quite interested how the properties dialog in nautilus looks so > > different from the properties dialog for a shortcut (launcher). > > We're trying to merge them and somebody known as "yeknom" on the IRC > channel (anybody?) worked on this. I'm not sure what the current status > on his or her efforts are. > > > === Permissions: chmod a+r === > > > > Please make sure the permissions are labelled > > Owner > > Group > > All Others (Any others?) > > (...) > > Sounds like a good idea. I'd also like to point out that I made some > experiemts in my blog [1,2] and not everybody seems to like them. I'm > still convinced that a simple mode that hides away details and an > advanced mode which is a chmod GUI (maybe just an entry, with some > tooltips?), which might also provide the symbolic and octal > representation of the permissions is the way to go. Some guys just know > what they're doing and others don't, let's satisfy both. > > > Tough problem to solve, especially since many people will have opinions > > on it. I would urge the developers to test new designs as best they can > > before committing to a new design (on ordinary as well as heavy users). > > I urge everybody to play with the permissions patches [3] I provided! > Unfortunately, developers tend to write first and then start to think > about a GUI, and not many usability people test code apart from stable > releases, probably because using CVS, patch, and the whole toolchain > forms a barrier for many people, also when considering the constant lack > of time virtually everybody of us suffers from. Part of the problem > really is that we can't easily separate out the mockups from the > codebase without investing roughly as much time as writing the original > code took. In this very specific context, I'm willing to provide > standalone binaries so that you can play around with them, It shurely would be nice to have binarys to play with. Or rather a tarbal. Would it be possible to have a tarbal which would compile with the gnome 2.12 of a mandriva cooker i.e. ? > but I think > one can't get a feeling for the issue without testing the actual product > in general. > > [1] http://blogs.gnome.org/view/cneumair/2005/12/26/0 > [2] http://blogs.gnome.org/view/cneumair/2005/12/28/0 > [3] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44767#c32 This permission dialogue seems great. Does this new version respect the default umask and acls ?: http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=19799 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317664 Because, even if a "common" user doesn't bother or might get confused with umask and ACLs, some administrators set special rights (with sgid + ACLs) on shared folders, to "simplify" the usability for the end-users, and it is broken when using nautilus (I have "end-users" asking why when the create a file on a shared resource, another person can't read it automaticaly, thus umask+acls where there to give others those "read" rights and you had previously told them the resource was a shared one). I admit I haven't tested the CVS verion nor your patches yet. I just wish for the usability that when creating a file or folder with nautilus, that file will respect umask,sgid and acls, So I'm rather asking if this has been fixed on CVS. I realy-realy like what you did with the dialogue ( http://blogs.gnome.org/view/cneumair/2005/12/26/0 ) where you can select recursively to set the rights on "Files, Folders or Whole contents", because sometimes you may wish to do changes recursively on sub folders, but not on the files in them, or vice-versa. i.e. you may wish to set a folder and it's sub folders sgid (for new created files to get "group-owned", without seting the sgid bit on the simple files contained in the folders (text documents, etc...) -- Yves-Gwenaël Bourhis Mandriva QA Team
Attachment:
pgpJR33qAv7L0.pgp
Description: PGP signature