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 alphabering it? I never
build PAM, s
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
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
No. But the behavior is documented in the bash man page:
"When the old-style backquote form of substitution is used, backslash
retains its literal meaning except when followed by $, `, or \. The
first backquote not preceded by a backslash terminates the command
substitution
[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 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
Declan Moriarty wrote:
If they
are mentioned and I missed them, I repent of course in sackcloth &
ashes.
You'll have to borrow them from me, and I might be still using them. :)
-jps
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe:
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
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/28/06 21:36 CST:
> Otherwise, you must concede that the constructs produce different
> results. And, looking at the example I provided, one is broken,
> one is not.
Certainly the constructs you provided produce different results. Did I
Chris Staub wrote:
I just remembered that you won't see this
issue if you have wget and not lynx, because it tests for wget first and
if it finds wget it never looks for lynx.
Have you filed a bug about this?
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxf
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
Rainer Peter Feller wrote:
> Not that I am the one to decide ...
> but what is easier to "read"
> sed s%"`which bash`"%"'echo '/tools/bin/bash'`"% -i /somescript.sh
> or
> sed s%"$(which bash)"%$(echo '/tools/bin/bash')"% -i /somescript.sh
>
> if you read a book?
Wow. I don't think either is v
Archaic wrote these words on 03/01/06 01:02 CST:
> Oh bollocks!
Not sure what bollocks means, but if it means "I'm totally confused,
on what the original statement is, but I'll post something anyway",
then it is an accurate word.
> Wrong:
> JUSTFORBRUCE=`echo ${BIGSTRING} | sed "s/^.*\($MYSTRING
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
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 07:12 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Granted, the $(...) may be easier to work with because of these caveats,
> but as it seems the behavior is known and documented, I'm not sure it's
> correct to say that `...` is broken.
I will retract the "broken" and would like to rep
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.
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
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
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
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Is that better phrasing?
Yep. :) And this discussion was good for showing us that `...` doesn't
work in exactly the same way as $(...), so thank you.
As I said, my vote is for $(...) in the book except for perhaps one
instance of `...` for educational value.
--
JH
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:11:43AM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I sent this to the dev list, but it didn't seem to get there.
> I'll wait a day or so and see what happens, but in the meantime,
> you may want to retract your statements, as they are a total
> falsehood.
Yes, after review I see
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 20:35 -0600, I wrote:
> echo ${BIGSTRING} | sed "s/^.*\($MYSTRING\).*$/\\${COUNTER}/"
>
> The word "string" was returned, as expected.
>
> JUSTFORBRUCE=`echo ${BIGSTRING} | sed "s/^.*\($MYSTRING\).*$/\\${COUNTER}/"`
>
> echo $JUSTFORBRUCE
>
> Woops, we didn't get what we
I've been following the list for about three months now, and during that
time I've built three versions of HLFS: 20060101, 20060108, and
20060220. I've dutifully rebuilt the toolchain for each version (though
not for multiple builds within a version), and it's led me to an
(obvious) realizati
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:
> 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
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
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
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
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
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 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
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
WARNING: the patch is incomplete. It assumes that SCSI module
autoloading rules are already added, but they are in fact not.
Erm, they are in the udev-config-6.rules file, unless you've spotted a
problem with those?
They don't load the co
Hi all,
There is russian web forum dedicated to LFS at the site of Perm Linux Users
Group http://linux.perm.ru/forum/viewforum.php?f=10
---
Dimitry
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information pa
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 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
34 matches
Mail list logo
