User talk:Edh

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE!
Leave me a message · Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).

sudo/visudo

Hi, I saw your edit in sudo. How about pointing out the command "EDITOR=nano visudo" has to be run as root in the text (not in the code as I did), just with a "(as root)"? Maybe I'm stupid, but believe me, I was literally sitting at my computer half an our to make the given code somehow run with different approaches with sudo, which all didn't work and I so far have never read that '#' is meaning root. I mean, of course I believe you in that, it's just sometimes hard to get to know those small facts as a newbie when reading a wiki article. :) Regards Kay94 (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)kay94

It is quite common for shell documentation to follow this schema of prefixing root commands with # and the standard user prompt with $. I do admit that this might be hard to even notice at first. However the warning message when running a root command as non-root user is usually very revealing. In the discussed case the error message should yield something similar to "visudo: /etc/sudoers: Permission denied" which should already have given you the hint to check whether you do run this as the 'correct' user.
I am sorry to hear that this worsen your experience setting up sudo. However I still think it is better to not specifically mention the user under which the command is supposed to run. The core question becomes why would it be necessary to state it here and not elsewhere? Clearly it nonsensical to specify it every time. -- Edh (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess it will not help you much now, but just for completeness sake: Here is a link to the corresponding section of the command formatting article in the ArchWiki. -- Edh (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Edh, if I can step in quickly, I suggest Kay94 to read Help:Reading#Regular user or root and the rest of that article :) — Kynikos (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thank you very much for your reactions! I can see your points. Anyway, in this particular case, I think it might be helpful to specify "(as root)" additionally, because when I do "$ EDITOR=nano visudo" of course it tells me about missing privileges. So I did "$ EDITOR=nano sudo visudo" and "$ EDITOR=nano" "$ sudo visudo", which both didn't work, I ended up in vi both times (VISUAL is set to nano, too, btw). Sure I missunderstand something there about proper usage of visudo, but I think this will happen to other people too. Regards -- Kay94 (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC) kay94
First of all you misinterpreted how your shell (probably bash) handles variables and how sudo passes them on. To me it seems your problem mostly boils down to bad luck :P If you would have tried sudo EDITOR=nano visudo it would have worked flawlessly. This case might look more complicated at first, but simply prefixing the command with sudo after getting a permissions error would have resolved this. Since placing sudo in front of the command resolves almost all confusions of $ and # (including this one), I would think of this as a fairly usual case, which does not need any further explanation within the article. -- Edh (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha, okay! Bad luck sounds right. ^^ "sudo EDITOR=nano visudo" really worked (bash). At least this made me look a bit into vim (not vi though) and it's not that bad acutally. I'm not sure if I get your last sentence right: Do you aggree it would be helpful to place a sudo in this case, as it removes all confusion? If so, you and I had a democratic 2/3 majority in this discussion, if not, I'm alone resulting in 1/3 and the article better stay as it is. -- Kay94 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC) kay94
The intention of my last sentence was to emphasize that the case discussed in this thread is not special and hence does not require deviating from the above mentioned Help:Style#Command line text. Sticking sudo in front of a command if you get errors related to insufficient permissions is probably what most users will do automatically and needs not to be explicitly stated in the article. In reference to your conclusion it seems to stand 1/3 then ;P (Btw. the ArchWiki does not necessarily need to work like a democracy, e.g. some wiki pages are completely off limits for normal editors :D). I hope you do not feel to strongly about the issue and are fine with things staying the way they are. -- Edh (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, sure! I'm cool, thank you for the patience. Kay94 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)kay94
No problem at all. It is always great to discuss with people who are looking for ways to improve to Wiki even further! Best Regards Edh (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Update reference to libinput-gestures

Hi,

I see you added your libinput-gestures-git to the Arch Wiki page on libinput. Do you mind if I update that to to point to libinput-gestures?

Bulletmark (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. It is always preferred to point to the stable release. I edited the wiki prior to the creation of your package. It was was not meant to be permanent. Though obviously your package deserves the spotlight here, it is very kind of you to ask. -- Edh (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)