Your message dated Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:41:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Not-A-Bug(tm)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Mar 2004 13:32:23 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 01 05:32:23 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail5.estaminas.com.br [200.188.191.52]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AxnWx-0004k0-00; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 05:32:23 -0800
Received: from mail.brasil.net (MG097007247.user.veloxzone.com.br
[200.97.7.247])
(authenticated bits=0)
by mail5.estaminas.com.br (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i21DW9Sx005716;
Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:32:14 -0300
Received: by mail.brasil.net (Postfix, from userid 1007)
id 1E9093F5B0; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:32:10 -0300 (BRT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Leonardo Serra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: multiple conf files (libnss-ldap and libpam-ldap)
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.49
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 10:32:10 -0300
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_27
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_27
X-Spam-Level:
Package: libpam-ldap
Version: 164-2
Severity: wishlist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
we believe that the existance of /etc/libnss-ldap.conf and
/etc/pam_ldap.conf is redundant because both confs seemed to be the same
on all our tests. We also noticed that both packages are almost
dependant sice none
of them is really usefull without the other.
Our suggestion would be that both packages use the
same conffile (/etc/ldap.conf) and if one of those packages is
installed, debconf does not configure the other (use the same conffile,
already made by the previous debconf run or the user).
thanks
leoserra
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.3-1-386
Locale: LANG=pt_BR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR.UTF-8
Versions of packages libpam-ldap depends on:
ii debconf 1.4.11 Debian configuration management sy
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-11 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libldap2 2.1.26-1 OpenLDAP libraries
ii libpam0g 0.76-15 Pluggable Authentication Modules l
- -- debconf information excluded
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAQztZidffdjWZJQERAncIAJ9eF/Hwi85o7hB5U0d0KKuVa4uz4gCcCmU+
yAmL8vYi8D3qHOfHuQx4Asc=
=2JN7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 235608-done) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Mar 2005 05:41:04 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 29 21:41:04 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from relay.snowman.net [66.92.160.56]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DGVwu-0002TM-00; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:41:04 -0800
Received: from ns.snowman.net (ns.snowman.net [10.10.0.2])
by relay.snowman.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-19) with ESMTP id
j2U5eVDu018603
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:40:31 -0500
Received: from ns.snowman.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ns.snowman.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-19) with ESMTP id j2U5f44H007278
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:41:04 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by ns.snowman.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j2U5f49Q007276
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:41:04 -0500
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:41:04 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Not-A-Bug(tm)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/
X-Info: http://www.snowman.net
X-Operating-System: Linux/2.4.24ns.3.0 (i686)
X-Uptime: 00:40:45 up 424 days, 32 min, 13 users, load average: 0.05, 0.14,
0.11
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Closing per submitter, and not a bug anyway.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
