| 1 |
Hello... |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
After spending almost three solid nights working on it I've given up |
| 4 |
trying to upgrade so we can have pam_stack and pam_console. After |
| 5 |
spending hours trying to track down the source of an error, changing |
| 6 |
pam.d files a zillion times, recompiling pam and shadow a zillion times, |
| 7 |
etc, I'm giving up for now. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I keep getting the same retarded undescriptive error message over and |
| 10 |
over (PAM_ABORT) which is _only_ used in 83+ different parts of the pam |
| 11 |
source code I'm getting nowhere. Whoever coded Pam obviously was |
| 12 |
alergic to logging real error messages and just have every damn test |
| 13 |
return error codes. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As far as I can tell the problem only affected the shadow package |
| 16 |
(passwd, chfn, etc). But thats a serious enough problem on its own. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Some interesting facts: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The latest official release is Pam 0.75 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- Redhat 7.2 ships Pam 0.75 with over 50 patches, not including |
| 23 |
pam_stack and friends which are not in Pam 0.75 |
| 24 |
- Redhat ships with a copy of shadow-utils thats a month or two older |
| 25 |
then our current unmasked one |
| 26 |
- Shadow-4 will not build against Pam 0.75 + Redhat patches |
| 27 |
- Mandrake ships pam as a big tarball with many of the Redhat patches |
| 28 |
and most likely a few of its own |
| 29 |
- Mandrake ships with a passwd command that _isn't_ part of the shadow |
| 30 |
package ( no, it didn't work either :( ) |
| 31 |
- Debian is stuck at Pam 0.73...? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
What does it mean? Hell if I know :( |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Sorry folks... if anyone wants to take a crack at it feel free... I'd |
| 36 |
recommend starting with the mandrake tarball. Its alot easier then |
| 37 |
dealing with 50+ patches. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Bruce A. Locke |
| 42 |
blocke@××××××.org |
Archives