-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21.04.2012 17:30, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> 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
> 

Hi,

I actually used cfg-update -u on 3 different machines up to now.
So cfg-update can't be at the core of that problem.
Maybe it's some kind of race-condition or the bug depends on other
things too (e.g.: I'm using gnome and gdm also puts some files to
/etc/pam.d which maybe mitigate the issue somehow) - pure speculation,
though.

The syntax for the masking seems to be correct (since shadow-4.1.5-r2
already has hit the tree maybe the problem is solved. Otherwise you
would most likely like to mask -r1 and -r2 also).

WKR
Hinnerk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPkwltAAoJEJwwOFaNFkYcuRwH/2FoHs4JwplMRZlSS4dtg388
y82/o4Cu60kgbdC1kHS7d/OXhu5ZHgTH1KhxW3zZZYxSBc6yGlTV4XBnBveEPBQG
R7VkBwLMK7kgQewQGBO2GVIVzDlKa2QtZAHTySgqFritZXZeYrpC5FXC+yj3/k3S
tpwZ2RcTFjdaCK8fbELRLtFK4DO00+j7Zs+3NvUz33tTSg8RBKh908DX6IRGW557
Ypd1o1X+Ea8RJcPN71Z8k4EGfwOI3nJW/kpttar3NdRfio6Kc7Gb8MYFeMFIGnX2
AVRTu7pfhdlkjR7+BCXm5kpMtcMZmhN1jelOj8lKtrZsC2VRuYbyjsT+1rssO8Q=
=CPBN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to