On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:01:19AM +0100, Michael Stummvoll wrote:
> Hi,
> > I would be willing to apply the slock.c patch, if you can supply diff
> > -u or hg diff output accordingly.
>
> thanks, patch is attached.
Oh I see, it is against the 0.9 release and not against tip, nevermind...
Cheers
Hi,
> I would be willing to apply the slock.c patch, if you can supply diff
> -u or hg diff output accordingly.
thanks, patch is attached.
Kind Regards,
Michael
--- slock.c.orig 2012-01-24 10:57:52.751270668 +0100
+++ slock.c 2012-01-24 10:59:00.616019472 +0100
@@ -38,9 +38,9 @@
const char *rva
Hi Michael,
On 23 January 2012 15:49, Michael Stummvoll wrote:
> On 23.01.2012 15:40, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>> On 23 January 2012 14:38, Nick wrote:
>>> No no no, much simpler that debian holds that 1 line
>>> Makefile patch, and any other distributions who want to
>>> change it from setuid.
On 23.01.2012 15:40, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 23 January 2012 14:38, Nick wrote:
>> No no no, much simpler that debian holds that 1 line
>> Makefile patch, and any other distributions who want to
>> change it from setuid. Such things are very distro-specific,
>> and besides, changing
Hey,
On 23 January 2012 14:38, Nick wrote:
> No no no, much simpler that debian holds that 1 line
> Makefile patch, and any other distributions who want to
> change it from setuid. Such things are very distro-specific,
> and besides, changing a config.mk setting in a debian patch
> is EXACTLY as
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 03:35:02PM +0100, Michael Stummvoll wrote:
> than, may we could make the shadow-group configurable in the config.mk or
> Makefile?
No no no, much simpler that debian holds that 1 line
Makefile patch, and any other distributions who want to
change it from setuid. Such thing
than, may we could make the shadow-group configurable in the config.mk or
Makefile?
Kind Regards,
Michael
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 03:20:44PM +0100, Michael Stummvoll wrote:
> I don't think, that checking if the tool has access to the password instead
> of assuming this by its effective user is distribution specific.
It isn't. Using setgid shadow is.
Hi,
I don't think, that checking if the tool has access to the password instead of
assuming this by its effective user is distribution specific.
Kind Regards,
Michael
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Michael Stummvoll wrote:
> With the Makefile your object may is right. Maybe somebody finds a better
> solution here than mine
The better solution is for distribution packagers to stop trying to push
distribution-specific garbage upstream. If there's a "
On 23.01.2012 14:28, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Not all distributions even have a shadow group.
the patch in slock.c is indepedent of this group, it just checks if it can get
the password-entry,
so it still runs on systems without shadow-group. It doesn't matter at all if
you realize the access
with
Somebody claiming to be Kurt H Maier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:33:35PM +0100, Michael Stummvoll wrote:
so I patched slock to not demant root-rights, but just checks,
if the password-query commands are successfull.
I also patched the Makefile to do not setuid root but setgid shadow instea
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:33:35PM +0100, Michael Stummvoll wrote:
> I fresh adopted the maintaince for the suckless-tools package in debian.
> Its debian-policy to avoid setuid root binaries wherever this is possible,
> so I patched slock to not demant root-rights, but just checks,
> if the passwo
Hi suckless folks,
I fresh adopted the maintaince for the suckless-tools package in debian.
Its debian-policy to avoid setuid root binaries wherever this is possible,
so I patched slock to not demant root-rights, but just checks,
if the password-query commands are successfull.
I also patched the M
14 matches
Mail list logo
