Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Please disregard. Andrey does not know what he's talking about and ignores any attempt at explaining what the real issue is and what real users want. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:01:43 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Please disregard. Andrey does not know what he's talking about and ignores any attempt at explaining what the real issue is and what real users want. Unless you specify

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 13:27:38 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: Unless you specify exact details of what I ignore, I'll be forced to treat your reply as NO REVIEW and commit this changes. Well, after numerous exchanges of nonsense messages a bit of details comes from des, so I correct my

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread phk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov writes: On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 13:27:38 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: Unless you specify exact details of what I ignore, I'll be forced to treat your reply as NO REVIEW and commit this changes. Well, after numerous exchanges of nonsense

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED! Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster! DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:58:57 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov writes: On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 13:27:38 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: Unless you specify exact details of what I ignore, I'll be forced to treat your reply as NO REVIEW and

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But... Nonsense from my side happens only because 1) I see the breakage. 2) Seen breakage, I try to guess what des means, when he made it, having no information from des. 3) If I guess it (with no information) incorrectly, it not means that

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED! Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster! First of all, there are many years of existen OPIE administration

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Mark Murray
Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED! Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster! POLA. We don't want to burn our user/admins. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH To Unsubscribe: send

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Mark Murray
Andrey A. Chernov writes: On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:01:43 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Please disregard. Andrey does not know what he's talking about and ignores any attempt at explaining what the real issue is and what real

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:21:15 +, Mark Murray wrote: Does the -as-localhost-alias break other PAM modules? No, it is local variable for that module. In what way does localhost or NULL break OPIE? Look into any pre-PAM code which use OPIE, like login code. Host (rhost) is only set to

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread phk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov writes: Please take this to private email. I not see enough good will from des side for it. Then please just stop. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:16:27 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: My message [EMAIL PROTECTED] dated 2003-02-16 00:46:27 CET contained all the information you needed. If you mean that quote from it: This behaviour was very surprising to people who wanted to prevent OPIE users from using

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED! Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster! Moreover, admins WITH old /etc/opieaccess (i.e. without your line) are

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Mark Murray
Andrey A. Chernov writes: On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED! Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster! Moreover, admins WITH old

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 03:48:20PM +, Mark Murray wrote: Andrey A. Chernov writes: On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:06:36 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED! Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 07:11:49PM +, Mark Murray wrote: In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation is a bug in its own right. If they are

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Mark Murray
David O'Brien writes: On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 07:11:49PM +, Mark Murray wrote: In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation is a bug in

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Mark Murray
David O'Brien writes: With a suitable HEADS UP! and appropriate changes to the documentation, might is be possible to move _all_ policy control into PAM, instead of having it split between OPIE and PAM? Nope. What about opieized, but not pamized applications? OPIE needs to act on

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 19:11:49 +, Mark Murray wrote: In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation We are not in the situation to force

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-16 ] [ Subjecte: Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review ] On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 19:11:49 +, Mark Murray wrote: In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we need to figure out something

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 15:39:51 -0600, Juli Mallett wrote: Can you explain how this stops purely opieized apps from working? I was under the impression the implicit case was still there, we just have a more explicit contract with the OPIE system. This is not pure situation but mix with

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 01:51:20 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: properly). If you tune opiezed+pamified apps to work as you need, pure opized stops working and vice versa. In this phrase I mean documented OPIE tuning of OPIE config files (old way), without any new additions and requirements,

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 3:48 PM + 2/16/03, Mark Murray wrote: Andrey A. Chernov writes: On Sun, Feb 16, 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admins with no /etc/opieaccess AFFECTED! Admins with no /etc/opieaccess IDIOTS for not running mergemaster!

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-16 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 20:16:43 -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: to indicate localhost. Andrey provided a patch which allows OPIE to keep that standard (to OPIE) meaning. Could people try his patch and then explain why it does not solve the problem they are trying to solve? The problem

OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-15 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
Background: recently des tries to fight problem that OPIE not sense localhost when called from PAM, but does it incorrectly. Moreover, he tries to fix OPIE config instead of fixing PAM bug: PAM not follows OPIE API. In non-PAM environment OPIE always sense localhost because its host variable

Re: OPIE breakage: backout patch for review

2003-02-15 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:41:58 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: des tries to fix OPIE config to add additional things here not needed by standard OPIE setup at all. To be more specific, exact breakage after des is: Old non-PAMified OPIE variant: localhost allowed even there is no