Comment 58 for bug 1713313

On 12/7/2017 8:15 PM, bodhi.zazen wrote:
> Wayland , upstream, does not and will not support running graphical
> applications, as root, from the terminal using sudo , period, end of story.
> There are other mechanisms to grant graphical applications root access, but
> again the application itself is not going to run as root.

Yes, it does, as you can easily test by suing to root and running gedit.

> And if you take your fat head out of your ass and look upstream you will
> see every bug files against wayland regarding the problem of running
> graphical applications with sudo has been closed as either not a bug or
> wont fix.

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91071 is not.

Neither is https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789867

And there it is noted that wayland does not explicitly allow or deny
root applications.

> On the forums, we would ban him for a period of time, 1-3 months
> depending on his behavior. Often we would start with a week or a month,
> but on his return he would start right back up with his violations, and
> we would extend the ban. Eventually he would cool down and we would
> restore his privileges.

Well now you're just lieing. You banned me permanently one time because
I dared to point out that you incorrectly closed another user's thread
for breaking the rules when he did no such thing.

> reference 32 is here https://lwn.net/Articles/517375/

This talks about weston not having to be run as root; not disallowing
client applications running as root.

> The blog is here http://mupuf.org/blog/2014/02/19/wayland-compositors-
> why-and-how-to-handle/

This talks about having weston be able to isolate different clients from
interfering with one another. Nowhere does it talk about refusing
clients with uid=0.

> Please could both of you take a deep breath and stop the personal
> attacks and aggressive language?

I haven't made any personal attacks. What I have done is point out that
this misconception that disallowing root applications is not true; that
gdm fails to perform its job as described by its man page. This
therefore is, ipso facto, a bug, whether or not you agree with the
terrible user facing consequences it has.