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, -STABLE's
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
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 mail to
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 in /usr/lib/compat
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 faulty
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)
[dlerror: Cannot
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 is
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_unix.so
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
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
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, let me
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 broken.
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 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 tested
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 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/lib/libXt.so.6
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
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
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 - [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
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 was.
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
