Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
On 04/06/2014 09:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is already installed by another package. You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. There isn't a groups executeable installed by shadow. Yes, we do disable that. Then why not disable nologin in shadow as well? Why over write only one of them? Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the Makefiles. For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and you will not know the over write has occurred. That seems like the correct behavior to me. -- Bruce but not consistent as above -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 09:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is already installed by another package. You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. There isn't a groups executeable installed by shadow. Yes, we do disable that. Then why not disable nologin in shadow as well? Why over write only one of them? Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the Makefiles. For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and you will not know the over write has occurred. That seems like the correct behavior to me. but not consistent as above Do you want to submit a patch? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
On 04/07/2014 08:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 09:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is already installed by another package. You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. There isn't a groups executeable installed by shadow. Yes, we do disable that. Then why not disable nologin in shadow as well? Why over write only one of them? Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the Makefiles. For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and you will not know the over write has occurred. That seems like the correct behavior to me. but not consistent as above Do you want to submit a patch? -- Bruce Attached is the patch --- LFS-BOOK-7.5-NOCHUNKS.html.original 2014-04-07 17:48:50.0 -0400 +++ LFS-BOOK-7.5-NOCHUNKS.html 2014-04-07 17:57:29.986548068 -0400 @@ -17341,6 +17341,13 @@ pre class=userinput kbd class=commandmv -v /usr/bin/passwd /bin/kbd /pre + p +remove nologin as a better version is installed by util-linux: + /p + pre class=userinput +kbd class=commandrm -v /sbin/nologin/kbd + +/pre /div div class=configuration lang=en xml:lang=en h3 class=sect2 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
baho utot wrote: On 04/07/2014 08:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Do you want to submit a patch? Attached is the patch LOL. That's html. The book is in xml docbook. I'll see what I can do. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
LOL. That's html. The book is in xml docbook.
I'll see what I can do.
I've looked at the patch briefly. I'm pretty sure that using rm to
remove an executable is a bad idea in a system that might not always
have package management. I'd also note that shadow will likely install
man pages for the executable, and the patch does not have any
instructions to handle that.
Bruce, my suggestion would be to add a new sed based off the one for
disabling the groups executable. I'd imagine that something like this
would do the trick:
sed -i 's/nologin$(EXEEXT) //' src/Makefile.in
find man -name Makefile.in -exec sed -i 's/nologin\.8 / /' {} \;
William
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
William Immendorf wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
LOL. That's html. The book is in xml docbook.
I'll see what I can do.
I've looked at the patch briefly. I'm pretty sure that using rm to
remove an executable is a bad idea in a system that might not always
have package management. I'd also note that shadow will likely install
man pages for the executable, and the patch does not have any
instructions to handle that.
Bruce, my suggestion would be to add a new sed based off the one for
disabling the groups executable. I'd imagine that something like this
would do the trick:
sed -i 's/nologin$(EXEEXT) //' src/Makefile.in
find man -name Makefile.in -exec sed -i 's/nologin\.8 / /' {} \;
Yes, I was going to do that. Thanks for the instructions tho. Saves me
some time.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
On 04/07/2014 06:53 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
William Immendorf wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
LOL. That's html. The book is in xml docbook.
I'll see what I can do.
I've looked at the patch briefly. I'm pretty sure that using rm to
remove an executable is a bad idea in a system that might not always
have package management. I'd also note that shadow will likely install
man pages for the executable, and the patch does not have any
instructions to handle that.
Bruce, my suggestion would be to add a new sed based off the one for
disabling the groups executable. I'd imagine that something like this
would do the trick:
sed -i 's/nologin$(EXEEXT) //' src/Makefile.in
find man -name Makefile.in -exec sed -i 's/nologin\.8 / /' {} \;
Yes, I was going to do that. Thanks for the instructions tho. Saves me
some time.
-- Bruce
This works
sed -i 's/nologin$(EXEEXT)/ /' src/Makefile.in
find man -name Makefile.in -exec sed -i 's/nologin\.8 / /' {} \;
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. Sincerely, WIlliam Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is already installed by another package. You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. There isn't a groups executeable installed by shadow. I could list the files installed by shadow and coreutils here if needed Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the Makefiles. For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and you will not know the over write has occurred. Sincerely, WIlliam Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is already installed by another package. You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. There isn't a groups executeable installed by shadow. Yes, we do disable that. Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the Makefiles. For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and you will not know the over write has occurred. That seems like the correct behavior to me. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
