On 29/08/06 00:12:00, Brandon Peirce wrote: > >I have never seen this technique before. But being curious I tried it too > >and > >am getting: > > > >su: must be run from a terminal > > > >Are there different implementations of su out there? I have an LFS 5.1.1 > > There is an su command in Coreutils and in Shadow. The one from coreutils > sucks. > > Ever since I can remember LFS suppresses the coreutils one and installs the > shadow > one, but maybe the suppression technique has changed. Also, LFS 5.1.1 is > probably > from the time before the merge of sh-utils and textutils into coreutils, so > you > should best go back and look at the relevant chapters of the 5.1.1 book in > the LFS > museum. If you skipped the supression command you might have ended up with > the wrong version. > > Running 'su --version' might help you to indentify your binary. Recent > coreutils > versions will respect that switch and clearly print out that it is from > coreutils. > Recent shadow versions will complain that it's an unrecognized option and > print > a usage message. I also have an older su binary lurking on my box (probably > from the shadow version used in LFS 4.0) which treats the --version arg as > the user name to su to, and will prompt for a password.
It seems I have su from shadow-4.0.14. It gives a usage message with --version. Is it really the shadow-su that accepts this pipe input? Lynx -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
