Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-amd64
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-amd64: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-amd64@g.o
From: Richard Freeman <rich@...>
Subject: Re: Problems with pam-0.99 upgrade
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:43:28 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Knecht wrote:
> 
> Richard,
>    Thanks for the response. I would have NEVER guessed that this qfile
> command was telling me the files that are no longer needed. I should
> have read the man page on that.

Well, strictly speaking it points out files that are not owned by any
installed package.  Normally when a file is no longer needed it gets
deleted, but the config protect feature prevents this in /etc.

> 
>    Now, was the intent of this Wiki to tell me what didn't need
> editing or what did? Seems very strange to me to point out files I
> don't need anymore but leave the impression I do.
> 

Hmm - not sure what wiki you're referring to, but the upgrade guide is
at: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/pam/upgrade-0.99.xml

The text around "qfile -o /etc/pam.d/*" is:
Because of the nature of configuration files, you might still have old
configuration files for packages you already removed, so you should
check first that there are no orphan files (files not belonging to any
package), for instance through the qfile command present in
app-portage/portage-utils.

and

The most common presence of orphan files in /etc/pam.d are the backup
files created by most editors, ending with a tilde character (~). The
remaining files, unless you created them yourself for your particular
setup, should be safe to remove (or at least move away), as they are
probably leftovers from previously installed packages. A special
exception for this is /etc/pam.d/vmware-authd for vmware-server, that is
created by the vmware-config.pl script (but it should be safe to remove
unless you edited it manually, you'll just have to re-execute the script).

Even so, I'll be the first to stand up and proclaim that PAM is confusing.

>    Anyway, the machine is working and I apprecaite your help.
> 

You're very welcome!

Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHLiDdG4/rWKZmVWkRAp6+AKCsOrDvkn4+jCt8sDTLHwjed+6IDgCeKCiZ
WJZAsS6a4hyQh3PgtQyxeXg=
=43rY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment:
smime.p7s (S/MIME Cryptographic Signature)
References:
Problems with pam-0.99 upgrade
-- Mark Knecht
Re: Problems with pam-0.99 upgrade
-- Richard Freeman
Re: Problems with pam-0.99 upgrade
-- Mark Knecht
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-amd64: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Problems with pam-0.99 upgrade
Next by thread:
Re: Problems with pam-0.99 upgrade
Previous by date:
Re: Compaq Presario V6420US
Next by date:
Re: Compaq Presario V6420US


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-amd64 mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.