After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 333670 - gnome-session startup program edit/delete buttons are sensitive even when user doesn't have sufficient permissions
gnome-session startup program edit/delete buttons are sensitive even when use...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-session
Classification: Core
Component: gnome-session-properties
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Session Maintainers
Session Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-03-06 21:49 UTC by Ray Strode [halfline]
Modified: 2007-01-07 01:24 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
Make edit/delete buttons insensitive when the user doesn't have write access (5.34 KB, patch)
2006-03-06 21:50 UTC, Ray Strode [halfline] 		none Details | Review
update of attachment 60803 to apply against 2.15.91 (7.54 KB, patch)
2006-08-14 18:28 UTC, Ray Strode [halfline] 		none Details | Review

Description Ray Strode [halfline] 2006-03-06 21:49:05 UTC 
While I was playing around with Vincent's patch in bug 333641 I noticed that the edit/delete buttons don't go insensitive for system entries in the startup programs list.  That makes it so the user thinks they are deleting something from the list when they really aren't.
Comment 1 Ray Strode [halfline] 2006-03-06 21:50:44 UTC 
Created attachment 60803 [details] [review]
Make edit/delete buttons insensitive when the user doesn't have write access
Comment 2 Sebastien Bacher 2006-05-15 13:29:18 UTC 
Ubuntu bug about that: https://launchpad.net/products/gnome-session/+bug/40207

"removing apps from the "startup programs" list doesn't seem to work as intended, when i log back in all the apps I had removed are still listed and get merrily restarted, regards, andre"
Comment 3 Sebastien Bacher 2006-05-15 13:33:59 UTC 
the patch doesn't apply clearly to the CVS now, it needs to be updated
Comment 4 Ray Strode [halfline] 2006-08-14 18:28:38 UTC 
Created attachment 70879 [details] [review]
update of attachment 60803 [details] [review] to apply against 2.15.91
Comment 5 Vincent Untz 2007-01-07 01:24:29 UTC 
I properly fixed this in HEAD.