On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2005 00:22, James Yonan wrote:
> > Thanks for the analysis. Because of the PAM bug, I think that
> > openvpn-auth-pam will need to support the dlopen workaround for some time
> > to come.
>
> Yes, I have been thinking the same.
>
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 15:15, Simon Perreault wrote:
> That's a bug that should be reported
> to SUSE.
...and here is the patch that should be submitted to them. I won't do so, I
don't want to help a distro which has given me so much trouble. (Much more
than only openvpn-related trouble.)
---
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 14:59, Simon Perreault wrote:
> I've also rebuilt the RPM (on a FC4 system, because I
> deleted my SUSE 9.1 vmware) and my rebuilt RPM does not have the bug!
AH! I understand now! Even though pam_unix.so is *built* in the pam RPM, it is
not *included* in the RPM. The rea
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 14:25, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Parts of your assumption about ldd -r or linkage of the PAM modules
> against libpam don't hold. I haven't yet managed to test the whole
> setup.
I don't get it. The original 0.78 tarball from
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/pre/l
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Simon Perreault wrote:
> poste10-161:/lib/security # ldd -r pam_unix.so
> linux-gate.so.1 => (0xe000)
> libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x4001a000)
> libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x4002f000)
> libxcrypt.so.1 => /lib/libxcrypt.so.1 (0x40033000)
> lib
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Simon Perreault wrote:
> You haven't explained why my statement ".so's are only included in
> -devel packages because their only use is when linking" is false. I
> have agreed with everything you have written, and I seem to be missing
> that critical part. You have even provid
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2005 04:44, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > This could be run and determined automatically by the autoconf/automake
> > couple, automake supports conditional compilation (i. e. depending on
> > autoconf findings, link another module int
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 11:10, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Is this portable to non-GNU makes?
> If it is not, does OpenVPN require GNU make? I don't think it does.
I'm afraid it's non-portable. Damn.
> Is there a broken-out C program that fails to link at run-time if the
> workaround is required?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Simon Perreault wrote:
> +# If PAM modules are not linked against libpam.so, set DLOPEN_PAM to 1. This
> +# must be done on SUSE 9.1, at least.
> +DLOPEN_PAM=0
> +
> +ifeq ($(DLOPEN_PAM),1)
> + LIBPAM=-ldl
> +else
> + LIBPAM=-lpam
> +endif
Is this portable to non-GNU
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 04:44, Matthias Andree wrote:
> This could be run and determined automatically by the autoconf/automake
> couple, automake supports conditional compilation (i. e. depending on
> autoconf findings, link another module into a program, or something like
> that).
Yes, that wo
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 00:22, James Yonan wrote:
> Thanks for the analysis. Because of the PAM bug, I think that
> openvpn-auth-pam will need to support the dlopen workaround for some time
> to come.
Yes, I have been thinking the same.
> Maybe the solution would be to set up an alternative Ma
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, James Yonan wrote:
> Thanks for the analysis. Because of the PAM bug, I think that
> openvpn-auth-pam will need to support the dlopen workaround for some time
> to come. Maybe the solution would be to set up an alternative Makefile
> target that builds according to your p
12 matches
Mail list logo
