| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 21.04.2012 17:30, Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, Apr 20 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:22:20 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>>> I'll run the update again today, paying more attention, and |
| 10 |
>>>> see what happens. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> What happened is it broke again, with no obvious signs of the |
| 13 |
>>> cause. conf-update reported only trivial changes to three |
| 14 |
>>> files. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> I've just tried it on my netbook and the same happened, but I |
| 17 |
>> think I'm closer to the cause. The three files in /etc/pam.d are |
| 18 |
>> login, passwd and su. After updating, there were ._cfg* versions |
| 19 |
>> of these files, but no originals, so conf-update just deleted |
| 20 |
>> them. It turns out these were owned by shadow but now belong to |
| 21 |
>> pambase. I suspect that pambase installed them as ._cfg versions, |
| 22 |
>> because the others already existed, then shadow removed the |
| 23 |
>> originals as they were no longer part of the package. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> Whether this is a bug in portage, the ebuilds or conf-update is |
| 26 |
>> open to debate, but conf-update ought to handle the situation |
| 27 |
>> better. I'll file a bug later if no one beats me to it. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> First, thanks for the warning. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> There is a bug filed |
| 32 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412721 |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> The comments there say that if you run etc-update right after the |
| 35 |
> emerge all is well (but this isn't sufficient for people who use |
| 36 |
> screen, detatch, and log out). Someone also mentioned |
| 37 |
> dispatch-conf working. No one mentioned cfg-update, which I use |
| 38 |
> (and I believe neil does as well). Could the problem be dependent |
| 39 |
> on which configuration file updater one uses? |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> I have not updated my primary machine. I did update another one |
| 42 |
> (both machines are ~amd64) including a cfg-update -q, but have not |
| 43 |
> rebooted it. The secondary can su. This seems to suggest that |
| 44 |
> cfg-update is sufficient in some cases. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Am I correct in believing the safe procedure is to add |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
>> =sys-auth/pambase-20101024-r2 =sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> to /etc/portage/package.mask (or a file in that directory)? |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> thanks, allan |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Hi, |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I actually used cfg-update -u on 3 different machines up to now. |
| 58 |
So cfg-update can't be at the core of that problem. |
| 59 |
Maybe it's some kind of race-condition or the bug depends on other |
| 60 |
things too (e.g.: I'm using gnome and gdm also puts some files to |
| 61 |
/etc/pam.d which maybe mitigate the issue somehow) - pure speculation, |
| 62 |
though. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
The syntax for the masking seems to be correct (since shadow-4.1.5-r2 |
| 65 |
already has hit the tree maybe the problem is solved. Otherwise you |
| 66 |
would most likely like to mask -r1 and -r2 also). |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
WKR |
| 69 |
Hinnerk |
| 70 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 71 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 72 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPkwltAAoJEJwwOFaNFkYcuRwH/2FoHs4JwplMRZlSS4dtg388 |
| 75 |
y82/o4Cu60kgbdC1kHS7d/OXhu5ZHgTH1KhxW3zZZYxSBc6yGlTV4XBnBveEPBQG |
| 76 |
R7VkBwLMK7kgQewQGBO2GVIVzDlKa2QtZAHTySgqFritZXZeYrpC5FXC+yj3/k3S |
| 77 |
tpwZ2RcTFjdaCK8fbELRLtFK4DO00+j7Zs+3NvUz33tTSg8RBKh908DX6IRGW557 |
| 78 |
Ypd1o1X+Ea8RJcPN71Z8k4EGfwOI3nJW/kpttar3NdRfio6Kc7Gb8MYFeMFIGnX2 |
| 79 |
AVRTu7pfhdlkjR7+BCXm5kpMtcMZmhN1jelOj8lKtrZsC2VRuYbyjsT+1rssO8Q= |
| 80 |
=CPBN |
| 81 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives