Toby Bluhm wrote on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:54:29 -0400:
> rpm -q --whatprovides /etc/pam.d/system-auth
> pam-0.99.6.2-3.27.el5
>
> rpm -q --whatprovides /etc/pam.d/system-auth-ac
> authconfig-5.3.21-3.el5
So, possible conclusion: they want to make pam self-sufficient, thus
replacing the symlink to
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 08:54:29AM -0400, Toby Bluhm wrote:
> ls -als /etc/pam.d/system-auth*
>
> 4 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 May 10 2007 /etc/pam.d/system-auth ->
> system-auth-ac
> 8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 848 May 10 2007 /etc/pam.d/system-auth-ac
system-auth-ac is the results of running au
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
William L. Maltby wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:09:17 -0400:
IMO, it's never OK w/o first examining the effects. The rpmnew is
provided specifically because replacing the previous one may be highly
destructive to the aims of that system's users/admins.
I've not looked, bu
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:14 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:09:17 -0400:
>
> > IMO, it's never OK w/o first examining the effects. The rpmnew is
> > provided specifically because replacing the previous one may be highly
> > destructive to the aims of th
William L. Maltby wrote on Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:09:17 -0400:
> IMO, it's never OK w/o first examining the effects. The rpmnew is
> provided specifically because replacing the previous one may be highly
> destructive to the aims of that system's users/admins.
>
> I've not looked, but I suspect the
On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 14:57 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> The upgrade to 5.2 creates /etc/pam.d/system-auth.rpmnew. I see that
> /etc/pam.d/system-auth actually is a symlink to system-auth-ac.
> Is it recommended to replace that symlink with the rpmnew file?
IMO, it's never OK w/o first examining
6 matches
Mail list logo
