Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 5 May 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > Yep, these modules don't exist in -STABLE. You should keep your old
> > /etc/pam.conf around for -STABLE programs.
> I thought that pam ignored pam.conf if /etc/pam.d exists?
-CURRENT's PAM does, -STABL
On 5 May 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > unable to dlopen(/usr/lib/pam_nologin.so)
> > [dlerror: Cannot open "/usr/lib/pam_nologin.so"]
> > adding faulty module: /usr/lib/pam_nologin.so
> > unable to dlopen(/usr/lib/pam_opieaccess.so)
> > [dlerr
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> unable to dlopen(/usr/lib/pam_nologin.so)
> [dlerror: Cannot open "/usr/lib/pam_nologin.so"]
> adding faulty module: /usr/lib/pam_nologin.so
> unable to dlopen(/usr/lib/pam_opieaccess.so)
> [dlerror: Cannot open "/usr/lib/pam_opieaccess.so"]
> adding
On Sat, 4 May 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:16:22PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Ok, I put the following in /usr/lib/compat, from my releng_4 box:
> >
> > libc.so.4
> > libc_r.a
> > libc_r.so.4
> > libpam.a
> > libpam.so.1
> > libpam_ssh.a
>
> There is no need for .a's
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:16:22PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Ok, I put the following in /usr/lib/compat, from my releng_4 box:
>
> libc.so.4
> libc_r.a
> libc_r.so.4
> libpam.a
> libpam.so.1
> libpam_ssh.a
There is no need for .a's in /usr/lib/compat -- think about it.
To Unsubscribe: send ma
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 04:36:41AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> modules and doesn't clobber your old 4.x modules. I asked David to
> put libpam and the PAM modules in COMPAT4X, but never heard back from
> him.
I guess I need clarification. Since PAM modules aren't versioned, is
there a p
On 5 May 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Then I'm back to my original point. I think that breaking binary
> > > compatibility for all 4.x pam applications is a very bad idea.
> > It was already
Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then I'm back to my original point. I think that breaking binary
> > compatibility for all 4.x pam applications is a very bad idea.
> It was already broken. There's nothing you can do about it.
Hmm,
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then I'm back to my original point. I think that breaking binary
> compatibility for all 4.x pam applications is a very bad idea.
It was already broken. There's nothing you can do about it.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsub
On 5 May 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> That's right, I'd forgotten - the old PAM modules don't like
> libc.so.5. Not much I can do about that :( I'm afraid you'll have to
> rebuild X.
Then I'm back to my original point. I think that breaking binary
compatibility for all 4.x pam app
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I updated to today's -current, including v. 1.4 of
> /etc/pam.d/xdm, and still no joy:
>
> PAM unable to dlopen(/usr/lib/pam_unix.so)
> PAM [dlerror: /usr/lib/pam_unix.so: Undefined symbol "setnetconfig"]
> PAM adding faulty module: /usr/lib/pam
On 30 Apr 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I saw that actually... but (not coredumping) != (lets users log
> > in). :) Should I update and try again?
>
> Argh. Just replace pam_lastlog with pam_permit for now. I'll try to
> find out exactly what
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I saw that actually... but (not coredumping) != (lets users log
> in). :) Should I update and try again?
Argh. Just replace pam_lastlog with pam_permit for now. I'll try to
find out exactly what is happening.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL
On 30 Apr 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there any chance that this can be fixed in such a way that 3rd
> > party binaries, like the xdm which comes with X as distributed by
> > xfree86.org will work OOB?
>
> Yes, please see my last commit to
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any chance that this can be fixed in such a way that 3rd
> party binaries, like the xdm which comes with X as distributed by
> xfree86.org will work OOB?
Yes, please see my last commit to etc/pam.d/other.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMA
Is there any chance that this can be fixed in such a way that 3rd
party binaries, like the xdm which comes with X as distributed by
xfree86.org will work OOB? Breaking binary compat will be a fairly big
obstacle for adoption of 5.x we have a hard enough time getting
vendors to support
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, so the bug is my binary is too old and is linked against the wrong PAM.
> Ok, my bad then.
Well, yes and no. There is a bug in xdm which is exposed by the
combination of Linux-PAM and FreeBSD's stock PAM configuration. A
slightly different configur
On 29-Apr-2002 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > ldd `which xdm`
>> /usr/X11R6/bin/xdm:
>> libXpm.so.4 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0x2807e000)
>> libXmu.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0x2808c000)
>> libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ldd `which xdm`
> /usr/X11R6/bin/xdm:
> libXpm.so.4 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0x2807e000)
> libXmu.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0x2808c000)
> libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x280a1000)
> libSM.so.6 =
On 27-Apr-2002 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please back out revision 1.3 of src/etc/pam.d/xdm since it breaks xdm.
>> xdm core dumps with a signal 6 if there is no session management
>> configured for it in PAM. Obviously this commmit wasn't actually t
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please back out revision 1.3 of src/etc/pam.d/xdm since it breaks xdm.
> xdm core dumps with a signal 6 if there is no session management
> configured for it in PAM. Obviously this commmit wasn't actually tested
> with xdm (at least not on X 4).
Yes, it
On 26-Apr-2002 John Baldwin wrote:
> Please back out revision 1.3 of src/etc/pam.d/xdm since it breaks xdm.
> xdm core dumps with a signal 6 if there is no session management
> configured for it in PAM. Obviously this commmit wasn't actually tested
> with xdm (at least not on X 4). In revision
22 matches
Mail list logo
