On 3/15/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One reason it isn't in the book is that snapshots aren't the same as
> releases, despite the vagueness in the name of the tarball ;) I agree
> it compiles ok and su -c seems to work, but I haven't got as far as
> trying to use it in my curren
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Shadow-4.0.15 hasn't been "officially" released, but there is a tarball in
ftp://ftp.pld.org.pl/software/shadow/snapshot/shadow-4.0.15.tar.bz2
coinciding with this post the other day:
http://mail.pld.org.pl/mailman/pipermail/shadow/2006-March/000262.
On 3/2/06, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ag, I noticed you submitted a patch for 'su.' Thanks for your work but
> it seems we may not be using the patch if the new shadow package is
> released after the weekend as indicated by shadow's developer(s). Thanks
> for the contribution, t
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
So that means I'm on the brink of work, but am generally procrastinating
to get anything done. That sounds like what's happening today. Can't
seem to get started on my regular work.
/me hands Gerard his last name.
There ya go. Have some initiative. ;)
--
JH
--
http:/
Richard A Downing wrote:
See below. Suggest you hold off on changes 'til Monday.
Even better then.
Ag, I noticed you submitted a patch for 'su.' Thanks for your work but
it seems we may not be using the patch if the new shadow package is
released after the weekend as indicated by shadow's
Dan Nicholson([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:56:09PM -0800:
>
> Ag,
>
> Is the patch you submitted just against current CVS? Seems like the
> most changes are in login.c. Not that that's wrong. Just curious.
>
Sorry for the delay,Dan.
Yes,i was working with the current cvs tree.
A
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is
>> resolved.
>
> Depending on the outcome of this testing, we'll want to discuss now if
> we want to downgrade shadow back to 4.0.13, or wait for its next release
> if there is a known release date.
>
On 3/1/06, Ag Hatzim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Backporting the cvs changes and creating a patch sounds like a viable
> > option.
> >
>
> Patch submitted.
> Pathcing only the su.c it results to compilation erors so i had to include
> other changes also.
Ag,
Is the patch you submitted just
Archaic([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:54:37PM -0700:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:48:57PM -0700, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> > >Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is
> > >resolved.
> >
> > Depending on the outcome of this testing, we'll want to discuss n
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:48:57PM -0700, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> >Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is
> >resolved.
>
> Depending on the outcome of this testing, we'll want to discuss now if
> we want to downgrade shadow back to 4.0.13, or wait for its next re
Dan Nicholson([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:49:19PM -0800:
>
> Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is
> resolved.
>
Pulling the source from cvs,fixed the su issue.
(~/LBFS/build_dir/shadow)su -c "touch /something"
Password:
(~/LBFS/build_dir/shadow)l
On 3/1/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://cvs.pld.org.pl/shadow/src/su.c
Something else I noticed in there is that there's a new switch (-p, I
believe), that preserves the environment from the caller. If that
means it inherits PATH, I will be a happy man. Seems that most of
Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is resolved.
Depending on the outcome of this testing, we'll want to discuss now if
we want to downgrade shadow back to 4.0.13, or wait for its next release
if there is a known release date.
If downgrading back to 4.0.13 isn
If this behaviour is 4.0.14 then you have a different one to me!
I suspect this is 4.0.13 - and that does work.
Thanks for that one. I thought I had version 4.0.14 installed on this
system but obviously I was mistaken.
In amidst the replies to this thread there was a message from Dan
reporti
On 3/1/06, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, on further investigation - this is a change since 4.0.13. Clearly
> 4.0.14 is broken. I'll report it upstream.
Richard, have a look at r1.62 which went in 4 days after version
4.0.14 was released. It's specifically for adding -c int
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
>> installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
>> makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
>
> The shadow version o
Richard A Downing wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> I'm at work at the moment so can't reply on list. Shadow's 'su' is
>> documented to support the '-c' parameter, at least in man/su/su.1.xml.
>> I'm pretty certain I've used 'su -c' before now on my LFS box, and we've
>> used sha
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
The shadow version of "su" does support the -c option providing you an
option to pass command line arguments to 'su.'
From its man page (based on shadow-4.0.14):
Additional arguments may be provided after the username, in which case
they are supplied to the user´s lo
Chris Staub wrote:
It has nothing to do with reordering the packages. LFS never has (AFAIK)
installed the su from coreutils - that's what the
"suppress_uptime_kill_su" patch is for. The su in the current version of
shadow just doesn't support the -c option.
Heh, Richard is getting flooded wi
Archaic wrote:
I hit that very problem yesterday and your email prompted me to check it
out. If you have followed the coreutils instructions for any book
starting with 6.0 then you would have been suppressing the coreutils su
and using the shadow one. Shadow-4.0.12's su accepts -c. I have no
con
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:27:12AM +, Richard A Downing wrote:
I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
Richard A Downing wrote:
> I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
> installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
> makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
>
> Which version would SVN build? And after alphab
Richard A Downing wrote:
I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
The shadow version of "su" does support the -c option p
Richard A Downing wrote:
I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
Which version would SVN build? And after alphaberin
On 3/1/06, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
> installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
> makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
The one from shadow h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I'm at work at the moment so can't reply on list. Shadow's 'su' is
> documented to support the '-c' parameter, at least in man/su/su.1.xml.
> I'm pretty certain I've used 'su -c' before now on my LFS box, and we've
> used shadow's 'su' for as long as I can r
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:27:12AM +, Richard A Downing wrote:
> I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
> installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
> makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
I hit that
27 matches
Mail list logo
