digiKam problem side effect - or maybe not

[Pete Smout]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 02/12/2014 09:27 PM, rikona wrote:
> Hello Liam,
> 
> Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 4:46:11 PM, Liam wrote:
> 
>> On 11 February 2014 22:29, rikona <rikona at sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Looking closer, this is a folder, user-owned, with files and 
>>> sub-folders in it apparently associated with the few kde pgms I
>>> use. It's actually var/tmp/kdecache-rikona, and there are other
>>> folders for other users including var/tmp/kdecache-root [owned
>>> by root - only has icon-cache.kcache in it]]. I just left off
>>> the rikona part in my original email.
> 
>> That's a crucial detail to leave off!
> 
> It probably is, I agree. I was too heavily focused on the digikam 
> problem and the konq effect was just a 'side effect'. I hadn't yet 
> looked in var/tmp and didn't remember the details fully.
> 
>>> If I remove kdecache-rikona, (1) will it mess up my other kde 
>>> pgms, and (2) will it be safely recreated by running those pgms
>>> [or was the dir set up at install time]?
> 
>> You might lose your local settings in them. Is that a problem?
> 
> Probably not a big deal...
> 
>>> Sorry, but I tend to be a bit cautious... :-)
> 
>> Not when it comes to leaving stuff out of a problem description
>> you are posting!
> 
> True - that was pilot error.... :-)
> 
>>> In the original error msg, it seemed to be complaining about 
>>> ownership. Is it possible that the folder kdecache-root is the 
>>> problem, perhaps created by running konq with sudo?
>>> 
>>> If I change ownership of the folder kdecache-rikona to root, as
>>> it seems to want, will that make the contents inaccessible to
>>> the other kde pgms?
> 
>> Root can access everything. Other users can't access root's
>> stuff.
> 
>> So, no.
> 
> I'm confused here. Let's say I run digikam [a kde pgm] as rikona.
> If digikam tries to access cache, and cache is owned by root,
> wouldn't that mean digikam cant see cache?
> 
>>> Is there an accessible creation-date that might tell me when
>>> these dirs/files were created? That might give a clue...
> 
>> Yes. If you want to play detective, go ahead.
> 
> I was checking how to do this and it seems there is no kernel API
> to access this info in linux, and thus can't be done. Is that
> true?
> 
>> My personal response would be: nuke 'em.
> 
> I did nuke the kdecache-rikona folder. Running gksu konq no longer 
> gives any error msg, but konq does not run either. Just trying
> gksu konq alone did not recreate the kdecache-rikona dir either,
> maybe because it didn't run. Running digikam did recreate the 
> kdecache-rikona folder though, owned by rikona, as before. Again 
> trying gksu konq with the folder there - no error msg but still 
> doesn't run.
> 
> Moved kdecache-root to kdecache-rootbak [just in case]. Again
> trying gksu konq with no kdecache-root - no error msg but still
> doesn't run. But - even though no error msgs and not running, it
> did create a new kdecache-root folder, owned by root.
> 
> Changed owner of kdecache-rikona to root/0. digikam seems to run
> but reports many errors in the CLI. Again trying gksu konq with
> owner root - no error msg but still doesn't run. Since
> kdecache-rikona is now owned by root, digikam creates a new folder
> kdecache-rikona2zokp, owned by rikona - it definitely wants a cache
> owned by rikona!
> 
> With owner rikona, trying the no-no sudo konq does produce the
> error msg as before, and gksu konq does not. With
> kdecache-rikona2zokp, trying the no-no sudo konq does produce the
> error msg as before, but then complains about the ownership of
> kdecache-rikona2zokp - and gksu konq does not. But in no case does
> konq run.
> 
> So - any idea how to make gksu konq run? Or sudo konq if that is 
> necessary. :-) I'd really like to again be able to run konq as
> root...
> 
> Again, many thanks for the help
> 


Hi,

This seems similar to your problem (not digiKam related) don't know if
you've found it before but worth looking at I think

Pete S
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS++4kAAoJEIzKh2BFg+xDmFUIAIj49yVcLFxgq8k12BliHakx
bYRxcV1bSu+ZnKpfdxZJ+X06FDpqJP6+0T9KP9xoR/19ynyk7dA/WSKRb8CM2Ph8
ZHwE+jPVr+TwQk6+lYrAeOkzqw/vGg3ykTh2D2+f3EfwqFXgU1v1/O8PD0LaueWI
vVrn5ryeUUaLvRG9Ap/rLxPpyY1E696NnlFUxs/d0lUUXPxlqxnZ1LlgjxXHQfpc
bOCrZdbRYyRK/eiDUTWqMER7HGPz/QBfGwJeYPXwjZgkDor/rSuA9a/qCcIUfHjG
DBnM7F8P2t6ws4X++QjD5ZnWhhzpvRY0obBWCu1VO/qozUevq6q3Q5BRYA9MoU8=
=YuwC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----