On 11/9/2021 11:27 PM, Jack wrote:
Works fine for me. Can you try it with strace to see if you can tell
where it crashes? That or emerge with sufficient debug info that you
can run it under gdb and get a backtrace?
Thanks, I'll try that when I have a suitably large chunk of free time.
On 11/9/2021 11:59 PM, Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote:
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 22:36 +0200, Anton wrote:
Is it just me, or has anybody else seen a similar problem?
Working fine here, with the following USE set:
USE="-gcrypt -ldap nls offensive pam -sasl secure-path (-selinux)
sendmail -skey ssl -ss
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 22:36 +0200, Anton wrote:
> Is it just me, or has anybody else seen a similar problem?
Working fine here, with the following USE set:
USE="-gcrypt -ldap nls offensive pam -sasl secure-path (-selinux)
sendmail -skey ssl -sssd" ABI_X86="(64)"
I wonder if your issue isn't rela
On 2021.11.09 15:36, Anton wrote:
On a recent update, `sudo` got upgraded from sudo-1.9.6_p1-r2 to
sudo-1.9.8_p2. Since then, any call to `sudo` other than `sudo
--help` resulted in a Segmentation Fault. I have tried remerging sudo
again or remerging the PAM-related dependencies, but it did
On 2021-11-09 22:36+0200 Anton wrote:
> On a recent update, `sudo` got upgraded from sudo-1.9.6_p1-r2 to
> sudo-1.9.8_p2. Since then, any call to `sudo` other than `sudo
> --help` resulted in a Segmentation Fault. I have tried remerging sudo
> again or remerging the PAM-related dependencies, but
>> This was actually a potential risk once upon a time:
>
> Sorry to drift from the topic, but would somebody please explain to me
> what a potential risk is? How does it differ from a risk?
A risk is always potential. A potential risk is when you are not sure
if it is a risk at all.
Al
> I agree there's no point in using sudo, but what's the problem? You
> don't need to edit the kernel sources merely to build a new kernel. You
> can build your kernel outside the tree using for example:
> make O=/home/user/kernel/tree/ menuconfig
> make O=/home/user/kernel/tree/
>
>
This is how I
In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote:
>
> Some people, such as myself, use kernel sources outside of portage (I
> follow a git repo) and do so as a non-root user. In this case the
> kernel tree is not owned by root and the config/compile is easily done
> as a non-root user.
>
> If you are super-paranoi
On Saturday 11 September 2010 23:03:14 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> Makes sense?
Not convinced. Sorry.
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:05:22 +0100
Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Saturday 11 September 2010 21:28:13 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
> > This was actually a potential risk once upon a time:
>
> Sorry to drift from the topic, but would somebody please explain to me
> what a potential risk is? How does it d
On Saturday 11 September 2010 21:28:13 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> This was actually a potential risk once upon a time:
Sorry to drift from the topic, but would somebody please explain to me
what a potential risk is? How does it differ from a risk?
(Not getting at you, Etaoin; the world is just full
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:28 on Saturday 11 September 2010, Etaoin
Shrdlu did opine thusly:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:35:58 -0500 Dale wrote:
> > If they are accessible by a user, couldn't a user then edit or add
> > something that would then cause a security problem? If they can edit
>
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:35:58 -0500 Dale wrote:
> If they are accessible by a user, couldn't a user then edit or add
> something that would then cause a security problem? If they can edit
> them and no one know it, then root comes along and builds a shiney new
> kernel with a really nice secur
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:46 on Saturday 11 September 2010, Albert
Hopkins did opine thusly:
On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 10:24 +0200, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
few months ago, I read linux kernel in a nutschell(sic), and the author
wrote we shouldn't do kernel op
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:46 on Saturday 11 September 2010, Albert
Hopkins did opine thusly:
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 10:24 +0200, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > few months ago, I read linux kernel in a nutschell(sic), and the author
> > wrote we shouldn't do kernel operations (config and bui
On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 05:46 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> In a perfect, tidy world we'd all do that. This world, however does
> not
> exist. Even portage, by default does configure and make as root
> (albeit
> in a sandbox so it is safe(r).
I suppose one could compile the kernel sources as roo
On Saturday 11 September 2010, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> Le Saturday 11 September 2010 11:46:59, Albert Hopkins a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 10:24 +0200, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > > few months ago, I read linux kernel in a nutschell(sic), and the author
> > > wrote we shouldn't do kernel ope
Le Saturday 11 September 2010 11:46:59, Albert Hopkins a écrit :
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 10:24 +0200, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > few months ago, I read linux kernel in a nutschell(sic), and the author
> > wrote we shouldn't do kernel operations (config and build) as root.
>
> I call bullsh*t. I'v
On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 10:24 +0200, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> few months ago, I read linux kernel in a nutschell(sic), and the author wrote
> we
> shouldn't do kernel operations (config and build) as root.
I call bullsh*t. I've been compiling kernels for 17 years and for the
most part have done i
On 2010-09-07 21:48, Mick wrote:
> Just updated and noticed that the edict:
>
> #Reset environment by default
> Defaults env_reset
>
> is no longer in /etc/sudoers.
>
> A load of other (commented out) environment incantations were added. What is
> the importance of this? Do I need env_re
On 21 Jun 2008, at 09:14, Ward Poelmans wrote:
2008/6/20 Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On my systems I have only seen this *every* time I `sudo` when my
clock has
been broken.
That's because the lecture option has the value of once and when your
time is messed up, it resets.
Well, duh!
2008/6/20 Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On my systems I have only seen this *every* time I `sudo` when my clock has
> been broken.
That's because the lecture option has the value of once and when your
time is messed up, it resets.
Try adding:
Defaults !lecture
to your sudoers. No need to emerge
On 20 Jun 2008, at 15:58, Paul Melvin wrote:
...
However when I emerge sudo, install and run it the following comes
up with:
We trust you have received the usual lecture from the local System
Administrator. It usually boils down to these three things:
#1) Respect the privacy of others.
> -Original Message-
> From: Etaoin Shrdlu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 June 2008 16:17
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Sudo config
>
> On Friday 20 June 2008, 16:58, Paul Melvin wrote:
>
> > How can I, when I sudo,
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:11:31 +0100
Anthony Metcalf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Melvin wrote:
> >
> > HI,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have been using ubuntu for a while and have come to like sudo.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now I am moving over to gentoo and would like to set this up as
> > for me it is far mo
On Friday 20 June 2008, 16:58, Paul Melvin wrote:
> How can I, when I sudo,:
>
>
>
> 1.get rid of all the text
The "lecture" directive in /etc/sudoers seems to control that, although
it's not terribly clear.
> 2.change the password line to something, dare I say it, like ubuntu,
> e.g. [sudo] pa
2008/6/20 Paul Melvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1.get rid of all the text
Add:
Defaults !lecture
to you sudoers file
> 2.change the password line to something, dare I say it, like ubuntu, e.g.
> [sudo] password for paul, I assume paul is just a $USER
Look at the sudoers man page. It's all there.
Paul Melvin wrote:
HI,
I have been using ubuntu for a while and have come to like sudo.
Now I am moving over to gentoo and would like to set this up as for me
it is far more convenient to just type sudo rather than the su business.
However when I emerge sudo, install and run it th
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Monday 17 March 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Since "recently" (I think since 2nd half of last week), when I use
> > sudo on my ~x86, I get the last login time displayed:
[snip]
> It's a recent pam update. I updated
On Monday 17 March 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Since "recently" (I think since 2nd half of last week), when I use
> sudo on my ~x86, I get the last login time displayed:
>
> $ LC_ALL=C sudo ls -1
> Last login: Mon Mar 17 07:12:40 CET 2008 from winnb000488 on pts/6
> 10001~
> [...]
>
On 12/4/06, Daniel Waeber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
jak gentoo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to allow users in the wheel group to run /etc/init.d/cupsd
> restart
> I edited /etc/sudoers with visudo to the following but it doesn't work,
any
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
jak gentoo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to allow users in the wheel group to run /etc/init.d/cupsd
> restart
> I edited /etc/sudoers with visudo to the following but it doesn't work, any
> ideas?
>
> %wheel ALL=(ALL)NOPASSWD: /sbin/run
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:54:52 +0100, jak gentoo wrote:
> I'm trying to allow users in the wheel group to run /etc/init.d/cupsd
> restart
> I edited /etc/sudoers with visudo to the following but it doesn't work,
> any ideas?
>
> %wheel ALL=(ALL)NOPASSWD: /sbin/runscript.sh
> %wheel ALL=(ALL)
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:39, "Daevid Vincent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-user] sudo requires password twice':
> Can someone paste/send me their (stock) "/etc/pam.d/sudo" file?
Sent via private mail.
--
"If there's one
ssage-
> From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:46 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] sudo requires password twice
>
> On Thursday 05 October 2006 16:36, "Daevid Vincent"
> <
On Thursday 05 October 2006 16:36, "Daevid Vincent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-user] sudo requires password twice':
> I've not figured this out yet, so reposting in case someone has any
> ideas...
Hrm, I either never got the original (not s
, June 11, 2006 10:44 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: RE: [gentoo-user] sudo requires password twice
>
> Just a little more info on this. I noticed on my server which
> I've not done
> the pam/shadow update emerge yet, this same anomolie
> occurs...
Just a little more info on this. I noticed on my server which I've not done
the pam/shadow update emerge yet, this same anomolie occurs... Any ideas on
why?
> -Original Message-
> From: Daevid Vincent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:46 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists
On Wed, April 5, 2006 8:06 pm, Grant wrote:
>
> I actually tried that first and when that failed I tried something
> like that specified here:
>
> www.gentoo.org/doc/en/sudo-guide.xml
>
> Either way I get:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ /sbin/shutdown -h now shutdown: you must be root to do
> that!
>
>
Grant wrote:
I actually tried that first and when that failed I tried something
like that specified here:
www.gentoo.org/doc/en/sudo-guide.xml
Either way I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ /sbin/shutdown -h now
shutdown: you must be root to do that!
Try
sudo /sbin/shutdown -h now
instead
> > I've added the following to the bottom of my sudo file using 'visudo'
> > and there are no complaints of bad syntax, but grant still can't shut down
> > the system:
> >
> > grant system4 = /sbin/shutdown -h now
> >
> > What am I missing?
> >
> >
> > - Grant
>
> First try to edit one of the exa
On Wed, April 5, 2006 7:45 pm, Grant wrote:
> I've added the following to the bottom of my sudo file using 'visudo'
> and there are no complaints of bad syntax, but grant still can't shut down
> the system:
>
> grant system4 = /sbin/shutdown -h now
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
> - Grant
First try t
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:43:04 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > Except this means you have to give the user permission to run bash,
> > and subsequently any command as root.
>
> True. But with "sudo su -c", you've got to have the same
> sort of trust, don't you?
Yes, they are both equally bad ide
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:58:09 +0100, Renat Golubchyk wrote:
>
>> Alright, then run
>> sudo bash -c 'echo some_string >> some_file'
>> No problem here :)
>
> Except this means you have to give the user permission to run bash, and
> subsequently any command as root.
True. B
Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> what I didn't notice was an alias for sudo as sudo su -c...
Why are you doing that? What's the purpose of using su
instead of sh here? Or put differently: Why use su to
run sh when you could run sh directly?
Could somebody please explain?
Alexander Skwar
--
Yeah, but t
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:58:09 +0100, Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> Alright, then run
> sudo bash -c 'echo some_string >> some_file'
> No problem here :)
Except this means you have to give the user permission to run bash, and
subsequently any command as root. You may as well give them the root
passwor
On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:48, JimD wrote:
> addkey()
> {
> sudo sh -c "echo $* >> /etc/portage/package.keywords"
> }
For keywording I prefer to use this script:
http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl89966/keix
It allows me to do:
$ eix porth
* app-portage/porthole
Available versions:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:12:38 + David Morgan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23:38 Thu 23 Mar , Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> > Careful with those quotation marks - you might want to escape
> > them ;-) I would use single quotes on the outside to avoid the
> > confusion:
> >
> > sudo 'echo "app-
On 23:38 Thu 23 Mar , Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> Careful with those quotation marks - you might want to escape them ;-)
> I would use single quotes on the outside to avoid the confusion:
>
> sudo 'echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords'
>
Do that and it'll say
sudo:
On Thursday 23 March 2006 16:33, JimD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] sudo echo':
> If you type something like the following:
>
> "> /tmp/myfile.foo"
>
> It will truncate the file. I use it when I want to clear out logs real
> qu
On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:38, Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:27:46 -0300 "Daniel da Veiga"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sudo takes a command as parameter, enclose the whole command in quotes
> > and try again, like this:
> >
> > sudo "echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:45:16 +1200, Nick Rout wrote:
> the elevation of privilege does not seem to survive the redirection. I
> suspect you need to know more than I do about the way redirection is
> handled by the shell to explain it.
Redirection is applied before the command is executed, so you
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:27:46 -0300 "Daniel da Veiga"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sudo takes a command as parameter, enclose the whole command in quotes
> and try again, like this:
>
> sudo "echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords"
^ ^ ^
On 3/23/06, Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JimD schreef:
> > I have been using Linux for a number of years and the one "trick" I
> > have never read how to do is something like:
> >
> > sudo echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
>
> Well this one I do with a se
Holly Bostick wrote:
> JimD schreef:
>> I have been using Linux for a number of years and the one "trick" I
>> have never read how to do is something like:
>>
>> sudo echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
>
> Well this one I do with a set of revised command nicked from
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:03:08 -0500
JimD wrote:
> I have been using Linux for a number of years and the one "trick" I
> have never read how to do is something like:
>
> sudo echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
>
> Another one I always wanted to know if it is possible
JimD wrote:
> I have been using Linux for a number of years and the one "trick" I
> have never read how to do is something like:
>
> sudo echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
echo whatnot | sudo sh -c ">> foo"
If you don't wish to append, the following can be used
as w
Hi,
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:03:08 -0500
JimD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been using Linux for a number of years and the one "trick" I
> have never read how to do is something like:
>
> sudo echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
That's because your _current_ shel
On 3/23/06, JimD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been using Linux for a number of years and the one "trick" I
> have never read how to do is something like:
>
> sudo echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
if you do this, you'll execute sudo echo and try to redirect the
JimD schreef:
> I have been using Linux for a number of years and the one "trick" I
> have never read how to do is something like:
>
> sudo echo "app-portage/porthole ~*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
Well this one I do with a set of revised command nicked from the list,
entered into ~/.bashr
Stefan Krüger wrote:
>
> (/etc/env.d/java/20blackdown-jdk-1.4.2.02)
>
> So far so good, but sudo-ing as user gets me the wrong (Blackdown) JRE:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ sudo java -version
> java version "1.4.2-02"
> Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build
> Blackdown-1.4.2-0
You also need to install vim because you have to edit the /etc/sudoers
file in order to add a user name. If you display the sudoers file ('cat
sudoers') it will tell you that the file *must* be edited by the visudo
command as root.
exaggeration... that is certainly the safe way to do it, but u
not going
to explain again what is in plenty of very good existing documentation.
>
> John D
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Lieber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:26 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user
C.Beamer wrote:
>
> You also need to install vim because you have to edit the /etc/sudoers
> file in order to add a user name. If you display the sudoers file ('cat
> sudoers') it will tell you that the file *must* be edited by the visudo
> command as root.
>
You do not need to install vim. sud
t Lieber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:26 PM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] sudo
On 8/25/05, John Dangler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to find out exactly what this means, since it's a recommended
piece from t
John Dangler wrote:
> Jonathan, Colleen, Holly~
> Thanks for the additional comments. Am I to understand, then, that I can
> emerge sudo without the use of skey? Since I'm still not entirely sure what
> its function is, I'd feel better leaving it alone. If so, then I'll get it
> emerged and foll
On 8/25/05, John Dangler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to find out exactly what this means, since it's a recommended
> piece from the
> Gentoo security handbook.
It compiles sudo with support for One Time (or "single key) passwords.
OpenSSH also supports skey.
--kurt
--
gentoo-user
to get it setup...
Thanks for the reply.
John D
-Original Message-
From: Holly Bostick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:14 PM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] sudo
C.Beamer schreef:
> John Dangler wrote:
>
>
>>I
C.Beamer schreef:
> John Dangler wrote:
>
>
>>I’m looking into setting up sudo on my latest test box
>>(stage3/genkernel 2.6.12—r9)
>>
>>In portage, sudo says “Allows users or groups to run commands as other
>>users”. The latest stable shows *1.6.8_p9 (although the one before is
>>it unstable, an
John Dangler wrote:
> I’m looking into setting up sudo on my latest test box
> (stage3/genkernel 2.6.12—r9)
>
> In portage, sudo says “Allows users or groups to run commands as other
> users”. The latest stable shows *1.6.8_p9 (although the one before is
> it unstable, and the one before that is s
John Dangler wrote:
> so, the best place to start would be to emerge sudo (and it's dependencies),
> and then try and configure it from there... (?) I'm guessing that, with the
> use flags set, it would also grab skey...
Something like that. But, at the end of the day, it depends whether you
want
: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:11 PM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] sudo
John Dangler wrote:
> The connecting page is a Solaris page that doesn't exist. I'm trying to
> find out exactly what this means, since it's a recommended piece from
> the Ge
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:40:59PM -0400, John Dangler wrote:
> skey says it's a "Linux Port of OpenBSD Single-key Password System" That's
> all the info I've been able to find out so far.
>
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Skeys
w
--
"Pages one and two [of Zaphod's presidential speech] had
been
John Dangler wrote:
> The connecting page is a Solaris page that doesn’t exist. I’m trying to
> find out exactly what this means, since it’s a recommended piece from
> the Gentoo security handbook.
There's a page at the gentoo wiki with some information about how to set
it all up:
"S/keys are on
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
> You want:
> sudo "echo 'media-video/xine-ui ~x86' >> /etc/portage/package.keywords"
>
No, I'm sorry, this is completely false.
Running
sudo "echo 'media-video/xine-ui ~x86' >> /etc/portage/package.keywords"
causes sudo to search the PATH for a *single* executab
Holly Bostick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
I think the problem come from the fact that echo is sudo-ed but the shell
redirection isn't.
Compare this:
su -c "echo foo > /etc/portage/whatever"
and
su -c "echo foo" > /etc/portage/whatever
The first one will succeed, but not the second.
Holly Bostick wrote:
So it will. Shoot. Oh, well. Maybe I'll rework this, or I should then
ask for:
1) firewall recommendations (personal, as the router has one too; atm
I'm liking firestarter)
I've been very pleased with Shorewall as a firewall.
--
Manuel A. McLure KE6TAW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:42:27PM +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
>
> So it will. Shoot. Oh, well. Maybe I'll rework this, or I should then
> ask for:
>
> 1) firewall recommendations (personal, as the router has one too; atm
> I'm liking firestarter)
>
For configuring iptables on Linux, I've had go
Richard Fish schreef:
> Holly Bostick wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Fish schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>>BTW Holly,
>>>
>>>You should recognize that from a security standpoint allowing yourself
>>>to execute bash is really giving yourself "blanket permissions to sudo
>>>to all commands". You might as well make lif
Holly Bostick wrote:
> Or is this not a valid proof that there are some limits left?
Not, it's not. A simple "sudo bash" will give you a root shell.
The problem in your example was the missing quotes:
$ sudo bash -c "/etc/init.d/samba restart"
Christoph
--
echo mailto: NOSPAM !#$.'<*>'|sed 's.
Holly Bostick wrote:
>Richard Fish schreef:
>
>
>>BTW Holly,
>>
>>You should recognize that from a security standpoint allowing yourself
>>to execute bash is really giving yourself "blanket permissions to sudo
>>to all commands". You might as well make life easier on yourself and
>>just make yo
Richard Fish schreef:
> BTW Holly,
>
> You should recognize that from a security standpoint allowing yourself
> to execute bash is really giving yourself "blanket permissions to sudo
> to all commands". You might as well make life easier on yourself and
> just make your sudo settings "ALL=(ALL) N
Holly Bostick wrote:
>>I don't just give myself blanket permissions to sudo to all commands; I
>>made a Cmd_Alias group which includes a lot of utility apps. And, like
>>many of you, I included emerge in this group.
>>
>
>Christoph Gysin schreef:
>
>
>>
>>$ sudo bash -c "echo package ~x86 >> /
Holly Bostick wrote:
> Thank you, Christoph
Your welcome.
> Last question on this subject-- is this all just bash scripting (so I
> can learn about it if I sit and study the abs-guide) or is there
> someplace else I should check out if I want to learn how to write this
> stuff myself?
Yes, t
Christoph Gysin schreef:
> David Morgan wrote:
>
>>afaik you can only do it with su -c "echo foo >> bar", which stops bash
>>from doing anything with the >> or the whitespace to begin with, but
>>then passes everything inside the double quotes to another shell, which
>>gets started by su -c
>>
>>I
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 17.21, Holly Bostick wrote:
> > To solve your problem, I would just do:
> > chgrp -R portage /etc/portage
> > chmod -R g+w /etc/portage
>
> Well, it didn't work (this to all the respondents).
Are you in the portage group?
> sudo echo 'media-video/xine-ui ~x86' >>/etc/por
Holly Bostick wrote:
> I'm really lost. Where am I going wrong?
check my other post.
> Oh, btw, just remembered-- this is bash 3. Does that make a difference?
No.
Christoph
--
echo mailto: NOSPAM !#$.'<*>'|sed 's. ..'|tr "<*> !#:2" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
David Morgan wrote:
> afaik you can only do it with su -c "echo foo >> bar", which stops bash
> from doing anything with the >> or the whitespace to begin with, but
> then passes everything inside the double quotes to another shell, which
> gets started by su -c
>
> It's kind of annoying, I know,
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:12:18 +0100, David Morgan wrote:
> Nope, I don't think you can do it with sudo since bash uses whitespace
> as a separator, so if you do sudo "echo foo >> bar", it'll look for a
> single command "echo foo >> bar", which is not what you want - you want
> a command echo with ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
> Le Mercredi, 6 Juillet 2005 15.52, Holly Bostick a ecrit :
>
>>Hey, ho--
>>
>>I've finally got around to setting up sudo. It works fine, except for
>>one thing.
>>
>>I made a Cmd_Alias group which includes a lot of utility apps. And, like
>>many of you, I included emer
On 16:54 Wed 06 Jul , Holly Bostick wrote:
> OK, you all likely realize that I responded before I had got the three
> more messages telling me what to do.
>
> I'm sure it will work (three people telling you the exact same thing is
> pretty convincing ;-) ), but what I don't understand is why/h
Edward Catmur schreef:
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:52 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
>
>>Echo is in the sudo-ed group, and echo isn't the problem-- the problem
>>is that permission is refused to write to the file itself (which is an
>>error *from* echo, so it would seem that echo itself is OK as far a
A. Khattri schreef:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Holly Bostick wrote:
>
>
>>Echo is in the sudo-ed group, and echo isn't the problem-- the problem
>>is that permission is refused to write to the file itself (which is an
>>error *from* echo, so it would seem that echo itself is OK as far as
>>sudo goes).
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:52 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Echo is in the sudo-ed group, and echo isn't the problem-- the problem
> is that permission is refused to write to the file itself (which is an
> error *from* echo, so it would seem that echo itself is OK as far as
> sudo goes). Which means
On 15:52 Wed 06 Jul , Holly Bostick wrote:
> Hey, ho--
>
> Here's (one of) today's non-critical problems that's getting on my
> nerves, so hopefully somebody can help.
>
> I've finally got around to setting up sudo. It works fine, except for
> one thing.
>
> I don't just give myself blanket
Le Mercredi, 6 Juillet 2005 15.52, Holly Bostick a ecrit :
> Hey, ho--
>
> Here's (one of) today's non-critical problems that's getting on my
> nerves, so hopefully somebody can help.
>
> I've finally got around to setting up sudo. It works fine, except for
> one thing.
>
> I don't just give myself
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Echo is in the sudo-ed group, and echo isn't the problem-- the problem
> is that permission is refused to write to the file itself (which is an
> error *from* echo, so it would seem that echo itself is OK as far as
> sudo goes). Which means that I have to
97 matches
Mail list logo
