-----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-----