Greg Schafer wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > > >>Steve, you do not have problems, but others do following BLFS > > > AFAICT, non-PAM builds are fine. PAM builds are still problematic > according to this post: > > http://lists.pld.org.pl/mailman/pipermail/shadow/2005-June/000125.html > > I don't have a PAM build here to verify, but I think the issue is still > there in latest shadow-4.0.10. > > At least upstream should now be aware of the issue. > > Regards > Greg
Greg, thanks for the link. I'll look into it a little more later tonight. Quick and dirty method (not fix) looks as to silence def_find(). If I read that correctly, however, the proper fix is to simply wrap the the mentioned def_find() calls in an #ifdef USE_PAM (IIRC it's USE_PAM, haven't looked at it since 4.0.7?) and include config.h. In either case it's a patch against shadow, though I would expect with this issue identified correctly, 4.0.11 will be here soon enough. >From the quoted pld post: >> in login.c:main() >> ULIMIT >> ENV_TZ >> ENV_HZ >> >> in setupenv.c:setupenv() >> ENV_SUPATH >> ENV_PATH >> QMAIL_DIR >> MAIL_DIR >> MAIL_FILE -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
