baho utot wrote: > > On 04/06/2014 09:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> baho utot wrote: >>> On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: >>>> On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: >>>> >>>>> the configure should be: >>>>> >>>>> ./configure --disable-nologin >>>>> >>>>> as nologin was previously installed by shadow >>>> Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is >>>> desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. >>> I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is >>> already installed by another package. >>> You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. >>> >>>> Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than >>>> shadow's groups binary. >>> There isn't a "groups" executeable installed by shadow. >> Yes, we do disable that. > > Then why not disable nologin in shadow as well? > Why over write only one of them? > >> >>>> Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, >>>> could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. >>> On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages >>> before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the >>> Makefiles. >>> >>> For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and >>> you will not know the over write has occurred. >> That seems like the correct behavior to me.
> but not consistent as above Do you want to submit a patch? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
