maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

Since I upgraded to maverick, the output of `last` has included every
xterm opened & closed. How can I reconfigure it just to show X,
console, and ssh log-ins (as it used to do)?


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> Since I upgraded to maverick, the output of `last` has included every
> xterm opened & closed. *How can I reconfigure it just to show X,
> console, and ssh log-ins (as it used to do)?

Use xterm's "-ut" option.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On 2011-01-27, Tom H wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since I upgraded to maverick, the output of `last` has included every
>> xterm opened & closed. *How can I reconfigure it just to show X,
>> console, and ssh log-ins (as it used to do)?
>
> Use xterm's "-ut" option.


It hadn't occurred to me to attack it from that end, but it works, so
thanks!

What changed from lucid to maverick --- the xterm default or the utmp
logging configuration? (Just curious.)


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On 01/27/2011 10:28 AM, Adam Funk wrote:

> What changed from lucid to maverick --- the xterm default or the utmp
> logging configuration? (Just curious.)

Probably the applications' defaults. Please keep in mind that utmp
-- very simplified -- is just a file and a simple API. Applications
_must_ write to it, the system does NOT take that action. There are
no logging options to utmp.

As time went by, since the initial utmp, less and less applications
wrote entries -- and some of them made it optional, some of them
just dropped support.

*Usually*, but not always, an entry is written if you set the
application default to "simulate login" (or whatever it is called,
varies a bit); this is mostly valid on terminal emulators or shells.

So. Chances are the applications changed the default for utmp.
Certainly *nothing* in utmp would do it.

Hope it helps,

..C..

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On 2011-01-27, C de-Avillez wrote:

>
> On 01/27/2011 10:28 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> What changed from lucid to maverick --- the xterm default or the utmp
>> logging configuration? (Just curious.)
>
> Probably the applications' defaults. Please keep in mind that utmp
> -- very simplified -- is just a file and a simple API. Applications
> _must_ write to it, the system does NOT take that action. There are
> no logging options to utmp.
>
> As time went by, since the initial utmp, less and less applications
> wrote entries -- and some of them made it optional, some of them
> just dropped support.
>
> *Usually*, but not always, an entry is written if you set the
> application default to "simulate login" (or whatever it is called,
> varies a bit); this is mostly valid on terminal emulators or shells.
>
> So. Chances are the applications changed the default for utmp.
> Certainly *nothing* in utmp would do it.

OK, that makes sense. Looking through the changelog [1], I get the
impression that utmp logging was supposed to be included in lucid but
couldn't be because libutempter was in universe; but in maverick that
library is in main so the feature could be put in xterm. Of course, I
could have the wrong end of the stick.

I guess it's personal taste, but I'm not sure why anyone would want
every xterm to be recorded as a log-in.


[1]
/usr/share/doc/xterm/changelog.Debian.gz


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Thu Jan 27 23:30:02 2011
Return-path: <bounce-debian-devel=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:26:15 +0200
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([82.195.75.100]:44900)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <bounce-debian-devel=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>)
id 1PiZM6-00028O-Sy
for tom@linux-archive.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:26:15 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 735C813A5599; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:26 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <debbugs@busoni.debian.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on liszt.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=4.0 tests=GMAIL,LDO_WHITELIST
autolearn=no version=3.2.5
X-Original-To: lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933F513A58D6
for <lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, GMAIL=1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=no
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id cx6xm0-EQomk for <lists-debian-devel@liszt.debian.org>;
Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from busoni.debian.org (busoni.debian.org [140.211.15.34])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3D313A48C5;
Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from debbugs by busoni.debian.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <debbugs@busoni.debian.org>)
id 1PiaOm-0004oP-EZ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:04 +0000
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#611309: ITP: nepomukcontroller -- systray applet that allows to suspend and resume Nepomuk
Reply-To: Lisandro =?UTF-8?Q?Dami=C3=A1n?= Nicanor =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A9rez?= Meyer <perezmeyer@gmail.com>, 611309@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Lisandro =?UTF-8?Q?Dami=C3=A1n?= Nicanor =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A9rez?= Meyer <perezmeyer@gmail.com>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: perezmeyer@gmail.com, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, "Lisandro =?UTF-8?Q?Dami=C3=A1n?= Nicanor =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A9rez?= Meyer" <perezmeyer@gmail.com>
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.611309.B.129616735017492@bugs.debian.or g>
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 611309
X-Debian-PR-Package: wnpp
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
Received: via spool by submit@bugs.debian.org id=B.129616735017492
(code B ref -1); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:01 +0000
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Jan 2011 22:29:10 +0000
Received: from [190.97.5.177] (helo=luna.lisandropm.com.ar)
by busoni.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <perezmeyer@gmail.com>)
id 1PiaKz-0004Xn-QC
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:29:10 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From: Lisandro =?UTF-8?Q?Dami=C3=A1n?= Nicanor =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A9rez?= Meyer
<perezmeyer@gmail.com>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Message-ID: <20110127222843.6025.59292.reportbug@luna.lisandro pm.com.ar>
X-Mailer: reportbug 4.12.6
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:28:43 -0300
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:04 +0000
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
X-Mailing-List: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/268151
X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-devel.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Lisandro Dami=C3=A1n Nicanor P=C3=A9rez Meyer" <perezmeyer@gmail.=
com>

* Package name : nepomukcontroller
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Sebastian Trueg <trueg@kde.org>
* URL : http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/Nepomukcontrolle=
r?content=3D137088
* License : GPL 2
Programming Lang: C++
Description : systray applet that allows to suspend and resume Nepo=
muk

Nepomukcontroller is a small systray applet that allows you to suspend an=
d=20
resume the Nepomuk file indexer.
=20
The systray was removed from KDE 4.6 to be ported to a stand-alone app=20
which was not finished before the feature freeze. Thus, this applet will =
be=20
merged back into kdebase for KDE 4.7. In the meantime you can use it from=
=20
here.



--=20
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian=
.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110127222843.6025.59292.reportbug@luna=
.lisandropm.com.ar

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On 01/27/2011 04:16 PM, Adam Funk wrote:

>
> OK, that makes sense. Looking through the changelog [1], I get the
> impression that utmp logging was supposed to be included in lucid but
> couldn't be because libutempter was in universe; but in maverick that
> library is in main so the feature could be put in xterm. Of course, I
> could have the wrong end of the stick.

No, you are correct -- since libutempter was in Universe, xterm
could not depend on it to write utmp entries (unless xterm itself
was demoted from main) -- so it was built without the interface.

> I guess it's personal taste, but I'm not sure why anyone would want
> every xterm to be recorded as a log-in.

Consider the case where xterm is actually run "remotely" -- this, by
itself, could be a good reason to write an entry on utmp.

But, basically, we should not rely anymore on utmp giving us
up-to-date, correct, information.

Cheers,

..C..

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2011-01-27, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since I upgraded to maverick, the output of `last` has included every
>>> xterm opened & closed. *How can I reconfigure it just to show X,
>>> console, and ssh log-ins (as it used to do)?
>>
>> Use xterm's "-ut" option.
>
> It hadn't occurred to me to attack it from that end, but it works, so
> thanks!
>
> What changed from lucid to maverick --- the xterm default or the utmp
> logging configuration? *(Just curious.)

You're welcome.

No idea what might have changed. xterm might have changed to run with
"XTerm*utmpInhibit: false" option, the group ownership of wtmp or utmp
might have changed from root to utmp, xterm might have changed to suid
or sgid root, or some xterm compilation option might have changed.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM, C de-Avillez <hggdh2@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 04:16 PM, Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>> OK, that makes sense. *Looking through the changelog [1], I get the
>> impression that utmp logging was supposed to be included in lucid but
>> couldn't be because libutempter was in universe; but in maverick that
>> library is in main so the feature could be put in xterm. *Of course, I
>> could have the wrong end of the stick.
>
> No, you are correct -- since libutempter was in Universe, xterm
> could not depend on it to write utmp entries (unless xterm itself
> was demoted from main) -- so it was built without the interface.

So my speculation was earlier speculation was wrong. :)

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On 2011-01-27, C de-Avillez wrote:

>
> On 01/27/2011 04:16 PM, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, that makes sense. Looking through the changelog [1], I get the
>> impression that utmp logging was supposed to be included in lucid but
>> couldn't be because libutempter was in universe; but in maverick that
>> library is in main so the feature could be put in xterm. Of course, I
>> could have the wrong end of the stick.
>
> No, you are correct -- since libutempter was in Universe, xterm
> could not depend on it to write utmp entries (unless xterm itself
> was demoted from main) -- so it was built without the interface.
>
>> I guess it's personal taste, but I'm not sure why anyone would want
>> every xterm to be recorded as a log-in.
>
> Consider the case where xterm is actually run "remotely" -- this, by
> itself, could be a good reason to write an entry on utmp.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I have a fairly traditional (ssh)
approach to remote use.

I open an xterm on desktop.example.com, ssh into server.example.com,
and the `last` command on server shows the remote login, even with
`xterm -ut` on desktop. I guess I could launch more xterms on server
over X (to appear on desktop), but it's easier just to open more
xterms on desktop and use a shared ssh connection to log into server.


> But, basically, we should not rely anymore on utmp giving us
> up-to-date, correct, information.

OK.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

maverick: utmp/last is logging every xterm
 

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2011-01-27, C de-Avillez wrote:
>>
>> Consider the case where xterm is actually run "remotely" -- this, by
>> itself, could be a good reason to write an entry on utmp.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean, but I have a fairly traditional (ssh)
> approach to remote use.
>
> I open an xterm on desktop.example.com, ssh into server.example.com,
> and the `last` command on server shows the remote login, even with
> `xterm -ut` on desktop. *I guess I could launch more xterms on server
> over X (to appear on desktop), but it's easier just to open more
> xterms on desktop and use a shared ssh connection to log into server.

I understood it as running xterm on a remote box.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users