On Fri, Apr 20 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:22:20 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> > I'll run the update again today, paying more attention, and see what >> > happens. >> >> What happened is it broke again, with no obvious signs of the cause. >> conf-update reported only trivial changes to three files. > > I've just tried it on my netbook and the same happened, but I think I'm > closer to the cause. The three files in /etc/pam.d are login, passwd and > su. After updating, there were ._cfg* versions of these files, but no > originals, so conf-update just deleted them. It turns out these were > owned by shadow but now belong to pambase. I suspect that pambase > installed them as ._cfg versions, because the others already existed, > then shadow removed the originals as they were no longer part of the > package. > > Whether this is a bug in portage, the ebuilds or conf-update is open to > debate, but conf-update ought to handle the situation better. I'll file a > bug later if no one beats me to it.
First, thanks for the warning. There is a bug filed https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412721 The comments there say that if you run etc-update right after the emerge all is well (but this isn't sufficient for people who use screen, detatch, and log out). Someone also mentioned dispatch-conf working. No one mentioned cfg-update, which I use (and I believe neil does as well). Could the problem be dependent on which configuration file updater one uses? I have not updated my primary machine. I did update another one (both machines are ~amd64) including a cfg-update -q, but have not rebooted it. The secondary can su. This seems to suggest that cfg-update is sufficient in some cases. Am I correct in believing the safe procedure is to add >=sys-auth/pambase-20101024-r2 >=sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5. to /etc/portage/package.mask (or a file in that directory)? thanks, allan
