On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:07 -0500, Matt Morgan wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:03:15 -0600, Ed Wilts <ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Without thinking about it too hard, I'd create my own system-wide > > .xscreensaver file. Then, at user creation time, create a symlink to > > the system version and make the symlink owned by root with no user write > > access. I obviously haven't tested this to prove that it works without > > breaking anything either. > > Thanks! I tried this and there's something I'm not getting. This all > works except that when I run chmod on the symlink, nothing happens. > That is, if as root I run > > chmod 644 ~morganm/.xscreensaver > > chmod doesn't complain, but nothing happens to the permissions on the > symlink (which remain lrwxrwxrwx). At that point xscreensaver-demo > can't edit the file (because the actual file is 644, root.root), but > the user morganm can delete the symlink and create his own > .xscreensaver. Is that normal? Symlinks have always confused me. If you chown or chmod a symlink, you're applying the changes to the file the link points to, not to the link itself. One way of achieving the user-unconfigurability would be to rebuild the xscreensaver package with a patch that removed the code that read ~/.xscreensaver. Long-winded but it would work. Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
