Arch Linux User Repository

Oh great, I see a couple of typos (on my recent comment), sorry about that, I wish I could just edit the post.

Hello and thanks for bringing this up, TBH I needed to do a little research as I was unsure too... Well, in fact I was as puzzled as you; thankfully I started to remember: a) There are a handful of issues that may arise when running X applications with sudo, namely: . Depending on how sudo is configured the invoked application may write configuration files into the $USER directories but with root ownership; . The application can simply default to /root directory and write its configuration files there when invoked with sudo; - Sudo does not provide a graphical frontend (i.e. for the cases when you want to create launcher, gksudo/kdesudo does that); - Sudo does not handle the X11 cookie file correctly (gksudo/kdesudo does); - Anything else? b) On the other hand about PolicyKit/pkexec: . I remember I started to learn PolicyKit at that time so it was a nice exercise to just start using it :) . PolicyKit does handle X applications in a proper way and it seems to be may be not that much but still a bit more flexible than gksudo/kdesudo; . From what I understand PolicyKit is a cleaner way to escalate privileges than to use sudo - albeit a complicated one; . The problem I describe above about root owning $USER files when the X application is launched via sudo does not apply to pkexec; . While both sudo and pkexec have a timeout feature they work slightly different: with sudo the timeout counter is reset every time you invoke it within the window of the timeout, in pkexec the timeout only works on the invoked application; no matter you quit the app within the timeout window if you launch another application pkexec will ask again for the password. Both sudo/gksu/kdesu and pkexec aim to address the same target so they share a lot of functionality but at the time they are slightly different; IMHO pkexec is a nicer way to escalate some X app privileges and should be preferred over sudo/gksudo, problem is that the PolicyKit rules that enable pkexec to do its magic should be provided by developers or packagers while with a moderately well configured sudo/gksudo you are on your feet w/o since minute zero. Finally: take this note with a grain of salt. I encourage anybody who reads this and isn't bored to death to do his/her own research and don't take my word as a final one, also if anybody sees anything wrong please be kind to enlighten us! Cheers.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between `sudo bleachbit --switch1 --switch2` and pkexec bleachbit --switch1 --switch2`?

Hi, I just stumbled across an issue trying to run Bleachbit with pkexec since the upstream doesn't provide the needed .policy file. Until they finally add it -they proven to be very diligent on fixing bugs and accepting patches- may be it could be a good idea to add it to it's PKGBUILD. If you choose to add it, maybe you would like to name it something like 'org.archlinux.pkexec.bleachbit.policy' (I chosen to follow the naming scheme other AUR packagers used). The file must be installed in /usr/share/polkit-1/actions and it will enable pkexec to launch Bleachbit effectively rendering sudo/gksu/kdesu obsolete. Grab it here: http://pastebin.com/Nj36aWDw

@koz - 1) Should be but I have not tested. 2a) That problem is on your end. I had no problems myself. $ sha256sum bleachbit-0.9.3.tar.bz2 76bb62166d05ebf209dff4811342ba5a7acafc534597709152b314aa06936c47 bleachbit-0.9.3.tar.bz2 2b) Try building with makepkg... I never liked AUR helpers due to quirks with certain PKGBUILDs.

Thanks to graysky for maintaining this other usefull cli-tool. 1) is latjay's bleachbit-bonus compatible with this one? 2) Got an error today - installing bleachbit-cli: a - validating bealchbit source file fails (three time). sha256sum gives me different values each time !? eg: 413ada88f2110b1bcc32c29bba33c72a93d87f6f3dc56df0dc1bc456302659ad bleachbit-0.9.3.tar.bz2 f7a636ef8fde927fb4889ec6d276d3b77e77b06cce42a2f47203734f23fdff24 bleachbit-0.9.3.tar.bz2 b - probably linked to (a) if i edit the PKGBUILD the build fails as the tarball is not uncompressed: /tmp/yaourt-tmp-archie/aur-bleachbit-cli/./PKGBUILD: ligne 24 : cd: /tmp/yaourt-tmp-archie/aur-bleachbit-cli/src/bleachbit-0.9.3: Aucun fichier ou dossier de ce type [me@pc aur-bleachbit-cli]$ ls src/ bleachbit-0.9.3.tar.bz2

Fek... I stand corrected as does the PKGBUILD. Thank you for your persistence :)

In fact, latjay maintains bleachbit-bonus (which is probably why they posted the recommendation in the first place).

Actually, bleachbit-bonus [1] requires bleachbit. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=61195

@luoimao - Right you are. The more I think about it, the provides array is pretty useless as no other packages require bleachbit... at least now.