[pacman-dev] [PATCH 10/11] makepkg: do not ask sudo password twice

[Andres P]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm terribly confused still.
>
> $ sudo cat /etc/sudoers
> Password:
>
> Defaults editor = /usr/bin/vim:/usr/bin/vi
>
> root    ALL=(ALL) ALL
> %wheel  ALL=(ALL) ALL
> dmcgee  ALL= NOPASSWD: /usr/sbin/vpnc, /usr/sbin/vpnc-disconnect
> dmcgee  ALL= NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/openconnect
>
> I don't see any exemption for `sudo -l` in there, but it never prompts
> me for a passwd (even if adding those timeout defaults). Or is it just
> the presence of any NOPASSWD entry at all? If that is the case, that
> seems downright silly...
>
My config is pretty vanilla so try that instead? Since the
misbehaviour happened there.

>>
>> Anyhow,
>>
>> What if there's a check for sudo's retval like I posted in the comments?
>
> There is no way to tell the difference between the retval of sudo and
> the retval of the called program as far as I can tell, so this
> wouldn't quite work.
>
In the context of falling back to su if sudo pacman fails, it would
not matter if the error is due to pacman or to sudo missing
permissions for pacman.

Notice that it was in direct response to "more password prompts" over
"loss of functionality":
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> I think I have found the issue here.   We obviously have a NOPASSWD entry in
> our sudoers file so "sudo -l" does not require a password.
>
> So the bug is confirmed.  However the fix is not fully functional as if I
> have sudo installed but can not use it for pacman, then I can no longer fall
> back to using "su -c".  I'd choose excess password typing over functionality
> loss.
>

In short, su would be the fallback if sudo fails for any reason.

Andres P