)
+++ postlfs/security/linux-pam.xml (working copy)
@@ -138,6 +138,8 @@
screenuserinput./configure --prefix=/usr \
--sysconfdir=/etc \
+--libdir=/usr/lib \
+--enable-securedir=/lib/security \
--docdir=/usr/share/doc/Linux-PAM-linux-pam-version
If you are using DESTDIR linux-pam 1.1.6 needs this patch from gentoo
From d7e6b921cd34f7ad8fc4d05065c75d13ba330896 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tomas Mraz tm...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:46:40 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add missing $(DESTDIR) when making directories on install
Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
On 30/10/11 09:43, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On Oct 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
The Linux-PAM build fails for me, most likely due to the Bekkeley DB
upgrade to 5.2.26.
I get the following error:
.libs/pam_userdb.o: In function `user_lookup':
/sources
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:02:53 -0500
Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
On 30/10/11 09:43, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Try building db with --enable-dbm.
Thanks, that worked. As mentioned by DJ in the previous post, I think
this should be included in the standard
I don't generally use PAM, so I don't mind any changes to it. I'm
curious though. What do others get from PAM? I don't see any
advantages over plain shadow for a direct terminal or ssh login unless
you have a lot of different users trying to login and you are trying to
control that
On 10/30/2011 12:02 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
On 30/10/11 09:43, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On Oct 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
The Linux-PAM build fails for me, most likely due to the Bekkeley DB
upgrade to 5.2.26.
I get the following error:
.libs
DJ Lucas wrote:
On 10/30/2011 12:02 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
On 30/10/11 09:43, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On Oct 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
The Linux-PAM build fails for me, most likely due to the Bekkeley DB
upgrade to 5.2.26.
I get the following error
On 30/10/11 09:43, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On Oct 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
The Linux-PAM build fails for me, most likely due to the Bekkeley DB
upgrade to 5.2.26.
I get the following error:
.libs/pam_userdb.o: In function `user_lookup':
/sources/Linux-PAM-1.1.3/modules
When reviewing the instructions for PAM, I see we are moving the libraries from
/lib to /usr/lib. Why? Surely we need the PAM libraries to be available if
/usr is not mounted.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
When reviewing the instructions for PAM, I see we are moving the libraries
from
/lib to /usr/lib. Why? Surely we need the PAM libraries to be available if
/usr is not mounted.
Look closer. The libraries required for PAM are not moved. What are
moved are the .so and .la
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
When reviewing the instructions for PAM, I see we are moving the libraries
from
/lib to /usr/lib. Why? Surely we need the PAM libraries to be available if
/usr is not mounted.
Look closer. The libraries required for PAM are not moved. What are
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:41:43 -0600
From: Randy McMurchy ra...@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Linux-PAM include system-auth
To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Message-ID: 49a6e267.3030...@linuxfromscratch.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Randy McMurchy
ra...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
Hi all,
I thought I had the include syntax down for the Linux-PAM conf files, but
I'm still a bit lost. More and more I'm seeing (this from an installed
file from the PolicyKit package):
auth include
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/27/09 09:08 CST:
[again snip all of Dan's fine words]
Thanks for the help, Dan. This clears it up a bunch for me.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3
Just a note to those who plan to use the latest version of pam, the
library versions you need to link to are now libpam.so.0.81.2 and
libpam_misc.so.0.81.2, libpamc.0.81.0 remains unchanged, as do the
instructions for compiling and installing it.
--
Hi all,
Worked with the newest Linux-PAM for a bit and have discovered that
much has changed. I'm not sure about functionality yet, as I've not
reinstalled Shadow and attempted to use PAM's services. My feeling is
that functionality hasn't really changed though.
What has changed is the build
Hi all,
I'll try and be as concise as possible and get right to the point.
The new version of Linux-PAM (see a previous post) has an issue
with Shadow. Brief description:
PAM installs libraries in /lib (which it should), including .la files.
This is new to PAM (it uses libtool and auto* a bit
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
I'll try and be as concise as possible and get right to the point.
The new version of Linux-PAM (see a previous post) has an issue
with Shadow. Brief description:
PAM installs libraries in /lib (which it should), including .la files.
This is new to PAM
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/28/05 17:46 CST:
#3 is the correct soultion (how we normally do for all other
packages).
Agreed, and how I'm going to do my next round of testing.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 19:17 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm noticing that Linux-PAM is installing some man (8) pages in the
root of the filesystem. It's happened on several systems I've recently
installed, and I see it happened on Anduin.
If someone else can confirm this, I'll change
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
I'm noticing that Linux-PAM is installing some man (8) pages in the
root of the filesystem. It's happened on several systems I've recently
installed, and I see it happened on Anduin.
If someone else can confirm this, I'll change the book to move the
installed pages
Funny how some things work out.
The BLFS book was just recently changed to make cracklib a required
dependency of Linux-PAM. I didn't think too much about it.
However, tonight I screwed up and forgot to install cracklib before
installing Linux-PAM. And PAM installed just fine. The configure
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Funny how some things work out.
The BLFS book was just recently changed to make cracklib a required
dependency of Linux-PAM. I didn't think too much about it.
However, tonight I screwed up and forgot to install cracklib before
installing Linux-PAM. And PAM installed just
Jack Brown wrote:
Here's how I look at it:
You go to compile something, it decides that it want's libm and starts
off looking at /usr/lib to see what it can find. It comes across a file
/usr/lib/libm.so which is linked to a file called /lib/libm.so.6. based
on this it tells the linker to link
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/22/05 11:23 CST:
I read the thread that Jack gave and Gerard wants to keep the links in
both places: /usr/lib because they are needed and /lib for consistency.
After all, this is primarily an LFS issue and only marginally a BLFS
Pardon my jumping in here but all of this discussion about PAM
reminded me of an issue from a while back regarding segmentation
faults with PAM/Shadow/Cracklib (as seen in the threads linked to
below). Someone on IRC was having the same sort of issues just
yesterday. Has this matter been solved?
Gerard Beekmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On February 22, 2005 01:18 pm, Randy McMurchy wrote:
See the difference?
There are no .so files in /lib for Readline and Shadow. There is for
PAM. This is what I've been trying to say all along.
Additionally, the PAM .so
Steve Crosby wrote these words on 02/22/05 19:56 CST:
How does that gel with the paragraphs above? libm-2.3.4.so is the actual
runtime library, not only the compile\linking library...
Though I'm not certain Gerard was just talking about symlinks named
*.so, I was. The whole point of this
28 matches
Mail list logo
