On 3/16/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/16/07, Jonathan Oksman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The same semantics caused a simular bug with umask. My user
(jonathan, group jonathan) got the default umask of 002 because of his
uid being equal to gid. After compiling gpm and
On 3/17/07, Jonathan Oksman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a simular topic now that we've started discussing sudo, I noticed the
book tells the user to just read the sudoers man pages for configuration.
A good call since it has some bizarre syntax. However, the default
options for sudo log
On 3/17/07, Jonathan Oksman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps either the configure option --log-fac=auth or the
*sigh* The real configure option is --with-logfac.
I'm awake now, honestly.
It should also be mentioned in the book that sudo does not support
md5 passwords natively. I say this
Jonathan Oksman wrote these words on 03/17/07 12:36 CST:
I'm certain that this restriction will no longer apply if compiled
against PAM, I'll post back with the results. If all works well,
perhaps PAM could be listed as a Recommended prerequisite to sudo.
I cannot see us ever recommending
Jonathan Oksman wrote:
It should also be mentioned in the book that sudo does not support
md5 passwords natively. I say this because I've only been able to
use it with NOPASSWD set. Further investigation into the source
code reveals that this is indeed the case:
sudo works just fine on an
On Sat, Mar 17, at 01:13 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jonathan Oksman wrote these words on 03/17/07 12:36 CST:
I'm certain that this restriction will no longer apply if compiled
against PAM, I'll post back with the results. If all works well,
perhaps PAM could be listed as a Recommended
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 03/17/07 13:51 CST:
Of course the usage of password is prerequisite for someone to use sudo.
I'm not sure I'm following (I understand what you mean).
How else you run sudo? Without a password? Noway.
Why?
'NO USAGE OF PASSWORD' == 'NO SUPPORT'
On Fri, Mar 16, at 05:46 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, at 01:48 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
I didn't applied the debian patch since from what I've saw it's debian
specific stuff (correct me if I am wrong).
Correcting. There
On Sat, Mar 17, at 02:16 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 03/17/07 13:51 CST:
How else you run sudo? Without a password? Noway.
Why?
Maybe because it's a stupid idea?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 03/17/07 14:38 CST:
On Sat, Mar 17, at 02:16 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 03/17/07 13:51 CST:
How else you run sudo? Without a password? Noway.
Why?
Maybe because it's a stupid idea?
Never mind. I was being serious.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jonathan Oksman wrote these words on 03/17/07 12:36 CST:
I'm certain that this restriction will no longer apply if compiled
against PAM, I'll post back with the results. If all works well,
perhaps PAM could be listed as a Recommended prerequisite to sudo.
I
On Sat, Mar 17, at 09:38 Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, at 02:16 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 03/17/07 13:51 CST:
How else you run sudo? Without a password? Noway.
Why?
Maybe because it's a stupid idea?
And because we set standards - and
On 3/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sudo works just fine on an LFS-based system without PAM. I have several
built according to the instructions in LFS and BLFS and sudo works just
as you would expect, with or without NOPASSWD.
For example, see the LFS LiveCD which is based
On Sat, Mar 17, at 09:50 Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
And because we set standards - and - everything we do, has to follow
standards.
If there is no standard, we make this standard.
If there is something wrong with the standard we fix it.
If it is outdated we update it.
And perhaps a good
On 3/17/07, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot see us ever recommending that PAM be installed. Instead,
it would probably be best to mention that if you need to use passwords
with SUDO, you're likely to need PAM installed.
I see where you're coming from Randy - PAM is no small
Jonathan Oksman wrote these words on 03/17/07 16:49 CST:
I don't think you should, now that I know I was incorrect. But it
would be nice to include that PAM is an optional component to sudo in
future versions.
There is an open Trac ticket to add *many* dependencies to the SUDO
package, which
Jonathan Oksman wrote:
If it's not a problem, I'll stop posting about it. Just trying to
help!
Yes, I understand and appreciate that.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 3/17/07, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an open Trac ticket to add *many* dependencies to the SUDO
package, which were inadvertently left out of the instructions from
the beginning. Linux-PAM is just one of them.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2249
--
Hi all,
I'd like to update the book with the current GLib, cairo, GTK+,
pango and ATK stack, but I'm sort of stuck with what to do about
cairo. The test suite does not behave properly. This is new to this
version. Up till now I've always had cairo pass all the tests.
First, I had the Glitz
On Fri, Mar 16, at 07:16 Dan Nicholson wrote:
Anyway, I made a patch pulling in all the upstream fixes, regenerated
the autotools, and added my not yet committed LC_ALL=C for sorting
script fix. It's a fairly big patch since I think I was using newer
versions of autoconf/automake than
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
It make sense the compliant POSIX shell (Dash) to be the default sh
shell.
Are you saying that bash is not POSIX complaint? It's a superset, but I
think its complaint, especially when called as sh.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
On Sun, Mar 18, at 01:01 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
It make sense the compliant POSIX shell (Dash) to be the default sh
shell.
Are you saying that bash is not POSIX complaint?
No of course not.
I just noticed in the Ash page, that we have this link.
So we can do the same
On Sat, Mar 17, at 09:32 David Jensen wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
would rather see a different color prompt for the root (red) and for
user (green maybe) - for obvious reasons.
if [[ ${EUID} == 0 ]] ; then
PS1='\e[0;[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\e[0;39m\w\$ '
else
23 matches
Mail list logo
