Re: F16, FTP-servers, sssd and LDAP-backend

2011-11-15 Thread Ola Thoresen
> > > Everything here looks correct. Seems like SSSD is authenticating the > user just fine. I'd say the bug is with pure-ftpd, then. File a BZ. > I'd have thought so as well, if at least one of pure-ftpd, proftpd or vsftpd had worked. But they all show the same symptoms. But I filed a report ag

Re: F16, FTP-servers, sssd and LDAP-backend

2011-11-15 Thread Ola Thoresen
On 15. nov. 2011 14:44, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > It should be working with *just* PAMAuthentication. Can you check to see > if /var/log/secure is showing any errors during login? > > Also, please attach your /etc/pam.d/pure-ftpd > and /etc/pam.d/password-auth files so we can see if they're > m

Re: F16, FTP-servers, sssd and LDAP-backend

2011-11-15 Thread Ola Thoresen
On 15. nov. 2011 13:03, Ola Thoresen wrote: > I have successfully set up pure-ftpd with LDAP-auth directly, instead of > relying og sssd, and that works fine. > Except users do not have access to folders woth "rwx"-permissions for a > secondary-group the are member of. >

F16, FTP-servers, sssd and LDAP-backend

2011-11-15 Thread Ola Thoresen
local users? This was working fine on an older server, running vsftpd, but with pam/nscd, not pam/sssd. Rgds. Ola Thoresen -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Advanced IPv6 in NetworkManager

2011-11-14 Thread Ola Thoresen
On 11/14/2011 11:03 PM, Dan Williams wrote: >> This is with NetworkManager-0.9.1.90-5.git20110927.fc16.x86_64 > > NM should allow static addresses in addition to RA/DHCP ones. While the > UI currently might restrict that (should get fixed) I'd expect it to > work with the right bits in the ifcfg

Re: Advanced IPv6 in NetworkManager

2011-11-14 Thread Ola Thoresen
On 11/14/2011 06:43 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:43:10PM +0100, Ola Thoresen wrote: >> >> So you say that both >> >> IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes >> IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES=2001:840:0:11::30/64 >> >> Shoudl work? >> (Have no

Re: Advanced IPv6 in NetworkManager

2011-11-14 Thread Ola Thoresen
On 14. nov. 2011 13:59, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ola Thoresen wrote: >> >> There is - however - one option I am missing: Some form of combined >> static and dynamic configuration. >> IE. I want the server to obtain an IPv6

Advanced IPv6 in NetworkManager

2011-11-14 Thread Ola Thoresen
configuration of IPv6-servers a lot easier, as you do not need to turn off dynamic addresses to give the server a static address. (I'd love to have the same feature in IPv4 too, but currently my main focus is IPv6, so that is my main cincern right now). Rgds. Ola Thoresen -- devel ma

Re: Default services enabled

2011-08-19 Thread Ola Thoresen
On 19. aug. 2011 16:00, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 08/19/2011 12:35 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: >> On Friday, August 19, 2011 03:41:33 AM Tim Waugh wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 16:52 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: It's not so much cups start up being slow as discovering network pri

Re: systemd (Was Re: tmpfs for strategic directories)

2010-05-26 Thread Ola Thoresen
access some tools that is needed by the script) then there is no need to edit any scripts, ant this whole debate is quite meaningless... -- _,--', _._.--._ .--.--';_'-.', ";_ _.,-' Ola Thoresen .'--'. _.'{`'-;_ .-.&g

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

2010-01-16 Thread Ola Thoresen
Have a look at this bug for instance: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=531343 It was closed two months ago as "WORKSFORME", still ABRT adds more and more users to the Cc-list. Obviously something is not working for someone, but ABRT seems to ignore the fact that the bug is closed