On Sun, Apr 22 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:21:56 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
>
>> First, thanks for the fix, hopefully not needed.
>>
>> It appears that the bug is in conf-update and not shadow so the rather
>> brusque changing of the status of the shadow bug to "resolved
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:21:56 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> First, thanks for the fix, hopefully not needed.
>
> It appears that the bug is in conf-update and not shadow so the rather
> brusque changing of the status of the shadow bug to "resolved" might be
> appropriate. But it would have been
On Sun, Apr 22 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 03:52:39 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
>
>> > > The comments there say that if you run etc-update right after the
>> > > emerge all is well (but this isn't sufficient for people who use
>> > > screen, detatch, and log out). Someone a
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 03:52:39 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > > The comments there say that if you run etc-update right after the
> > > emerge all is well (but this isn't sufficient for people who use
> > > screen, detatch, and log out). Someone also mentioned
> > > dispatch-conf working. No on
Hinnerk van Bruinehsen writes:
> On 21.04.2012 17:30, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:22:20 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
[...]
> >>> What happened is it broke again, with no obvious signs of the
> >>> cause. conf-update reported o
On Sat, Apr 21 2012, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
> On 21.04.2012 17:30, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
>>
>> There is a bug filed
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412721
>>
>> Am I correct in believing the safe procedure is to add
>>
>>> =sys-auth/pambase-20101024-r2 =sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21.04.2012 17:30, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:22:20 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
I'll run the update again today, paying more attention, and
see what happens.
>>>
>>> W
On Fri, Apr 20 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:22:20 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> > I'll run the update again today, paying more attention, and see what
>> > happens.
>>
>> What happened is it broke again, with no obvious signs of the cause.
>> conf-update reported only
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:22:20 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > I'll run the update again today, paying more attention, and see what
> > happens.
>
> What happened is it broke again, with no obvious signs of the cause.
> conf-update reported only trivial changes to three files.
I've just tried it
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:56:48 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> I'll run the update again today, paying more attention, and see what
> happens.
What happened is it broke again, with no obvious signs of the cause.
conf-update reported only trivial changes to three files.
% su
su: Authentication failur
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:12:55 -0700, walt wrote:
> >> That seems like a (possibly) helpful clue. When you downgraded,
> >> did you do etc-update again, or were you asked to? Did you run
> >> it after the original upgrade?
> >
> > No, no and no.
>
> Just to confirm, are you saying that you d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Before etc-update severaly login-related things didn't work for me (su
not possible for example). After running etc-update everything seems
to work fine for me (e.g. selinux and gnome3).
I must confess that I didn't use sshd on my laptop so I can't say
On 04/19/2012 04:41 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:39:25 -0700, walt wrote:
>
>>> That would have failed on su. It works because I have key
>>> authentication for SSH. Otherwise I'd have been screwed.
>>
>> That seems like a (possibly) helpful clue. When you downgraded,
>> di
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:39:25 -0700, walt wrote:
> > That would have failed on su. It works because I have key
> > authentication for SSH. Otherwise I'd have been screwed.
>
> That seems like a (possibly) helpful clue. When you downgraded,
> did you do etc-update again, or were you asked to? D
On 04/19/2012 02:51 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:58:42 -0700, walt wrote:
>
>>> I upgraded to sys-auth/pambase-20120417 and sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1
>>> and found I couldn't login to a new session or use su. Rebooting only
>>> made the problem permanent, I had to SSH in to rev
On 20/04/12 00:47, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:57:45 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Good thing I don't have pambase installed :-P
This is a recent build, so I thought I'd come out of the stone age and
try using pam. That cave looks rather inviting right now...
When I initia
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:58:42 -0700, walt wrote:
> > I upgraded to sys-auth/pambase-20120417 and sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1
> > and found I couldn't login to a new session or use su. Rebooting only
> > made the problem permanent, I had to SSH in to revert to
> > sys-auth/pambase-20101024-r2 and sys-a
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:57:45 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Good thing I don't have pambase installed :-P
This is a recent build, so I thought I'd come out of the stone age and
try using pam. That cave looks rather inviting right now...
--
Neil Bothwick
- We are but packets in the internet
On 04/19/2012 12:46 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> I upgraded to sys-auth/pambase-20120417 and sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1 and
> found I couldn't login to a new session or use su. Rebooting only made
> the problem permanent, I had to SSH in to revert to
> sys-auth/pambase-20101024-r2 and sys-apps/shadow-4
On 19/04/12 22:46, Neil Bothwick wrote:
I upgraded to sys-auth/pambase-20120417 and sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1 and
found I couldn't login to a new session or use su. Rebooting only made
the problem permanent, I had to SSH in to revert to
sys-auth/pambase-20101024-r2 and sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5.
I've
20 matches
Mail list logo
