Archives
Archives
| From: | Hartmut Figge <h.figge@×××.de> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | [gentoo-user] Re: virtual/pam masked but required by all non-hardened profiles? | ||
| Date: | Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:33:59 | ||
| Message-Id: | 6dec32a1-42e9-0b96-6f83-613e1a798268@hfigge.myfqdn.de | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-user] virtual/pam masked but required by all non-hardened profiles? by Grant Edwards |
||
| 1 | Grant Edwards: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | >This morning emerge is complaining that virtual/pam-0-r1 is masked and |
| 4 | >scheduled for removal in 14 days. But virtual/pam is required by |
| 5 | >sys-apps/shadow which is part of the base profiles. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | I was just bitten by that. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | >What am I missing? |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Time for waiting? |
| 12 | |
| 13 | Hartmut, gets coat |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| [gentoo-user] Re: virtual/pam masked but required by all non-hardened profiles? | Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: virtual/pam masked but required by all non-hardened profiles? | Marc Joliet <marcec@×××.de> |