Bug#163635: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#163635: Advice about this bug report

2005-04-14 Thread Christian Perrier
Fix me if I'm wrong. Correct solution will be remove CLOSE_SESSION conditions and use this code uncondionaly if shadow was configured with PAM enabled (?) Hmm, well, I'm not sure anyone suggested such a drastic change. This could be likely to inadvertently change some behaviour here or there.

Bug#163635: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#163635: Advice about this bug report

2005-04-12 Thread Bastian Kleineidam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 10:35:46PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: I have to admit that you left me lost somewhere but,well, please don't try to re-explainthis goes far above my own head...:-) In short: most PAM applications need to have

Bug#163635: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#163635: Advice about this bug report

2005-04-09 Thread Alexander Gattin
Hi! On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 09:14:58AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: I'm ready to follow the bug submitter's advice, with Bastian K. advice as well but I'm indeed not very competent about this. If Debian used pam_xauth, for example, the setting would already have been changed to be yes by

Bug#163635: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#163635: Advice about this bug report

2005-04-09 Thread Alexander Gattin
Hi! In fact, having CLOSE_SESSION set to no results in pam_close_session not being called, ALSO: this results in pam_end _not being called_ too! The latter will cause PAM data cleanup callbacks (PDCC) being _not run_ (for description of PDCC see pam_set_data in

Bug#163635: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#163635: Advice about this bug report

2005-04-09 Thread Christian Perrier
Now having CLOSE_SESSION set to no seems to be a total disaster, isn't it? ;) I have to admit that you left me lost somewhere but, well, please don't try to re-explainthis goes far above my own head...:-) With no more input, I will probably just change the setting in post-sarge