| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 21 2012, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 21.04.2012 17:30, Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> There is a bug filed |
| 6 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412721 |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Am I correct in believing the safe procedure is to add |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>> =sys-auth/pambase-20101024-r2 =sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> to /etc/portage/package.mask (or a file in that directory)? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> I actually used cfg-update -u on 3 different machines up to now. |
| 15 |
> So cfg-update can't be at the core of that problem. |
| 16 |
> Maybe it's some kind of race-condition or the bug depends on other |
| 17 |
> things too (e.g.: I'm using gnome and gdm also puts some files to |
| 18 |
> /etc/pam.d which maybe mitigate the issue somehow) - pure speculation, |
| 19 |
> though. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thanks. I also use gnome (-3) and gdm on all machines and this might |
| 22 |
explain why my secondary machine survived the update. However, there |
| 23 |
are doubtless many users and developers running KDE and the bug has no |
| 24 |
mention of them being unable to run after etc-update and friends (unless |
| 25 |
the damage is so great they can't add to the bug :-( ). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
My secondary laptop has the "dangerous" versions installed and has been |
| 28 |
successfully rebooted and logged in to. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I am taking a more cautious approach on my primary laptop and masking |
| 31 |
>=sys-auth/pambase-20120417 |
| 32 |
>=sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1 |
| 33 |
until the smoke clears. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
allan |
Archives