Re: [gentoo-server] pam-login and shadow conflict

[Kerin Millar]

On 01/06/06, Kerin Millar <kerframil@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> I just want to add that the developer flameyes has blogged about this issue:
>
> http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/flameeyes/2006/03/19/the_shadow_and_pam_login_conflict
>
> One of the comments rather sensibly suggests to use the following
> command instead (collision protection will be disabled which allows
> the order to be reversed and thus, there is no danger of losing
> /bin/login at any time during the procedure):
>
> FEATURES=-collision-protect emerge --nodeps shadow && emerge --unmerge pam-login
>

Hi all,

I realise that this issue is probably a little stale by now but I had
cause to discuss this with someone on IRC very recently which prompted
me to consider the matter further. It occurred to me that the
following should make for an even neater solution:

  # touch /bin/login && emerge -C pam-login && emerge shadow

The reason is that portage won't remove files where the timestamp is
newer than that indicated in the package's manifest under /var/db/pkg.
So it will preserve /bin/login whilst uninstalling the reast of
pam-login and will replace it when it merges the shadow package. And
we get to avoid the nasty --nodeps hack (which, in the previous
suggestion, is needed because of the block).

Cheers,

--Kerin
-- 
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list