Your message dated Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:30:12 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Policy or best practices for debug packages?
has caused the Debian Bug report #487879,
regarding libpam-modules: Ability to enable core dumps is unnecessarily made
difficult by default hard limit
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
487879: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=487879
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libpam-modules
Version: 0.99.7.1-6
Severity: wishlist
It would be better if the hard limit for core dumps would be set to some
value (maybe even unlimited) and the soft limit to 0, this would allow
any user to be able to enable core dumps.
Mike
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.25-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages libpam-modules depends on:
ii libc6 2.7-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libdb4.6 4.6.21-10 Berkeley v4.6 Database Libraries [
ii libpam0g 0.99.7.1-6 Pluggable Authentication Modules l
ii libselinux1 2.0.59-1 SELinux shared libraries
libpam-modules recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > And she won't have a core for the
> > previous crash because the default is not to core (and BTW, it's uselessly
> > made difficult to override this, see #487879).
>
> I just looked at this bug, and are you sure this isn't because you
> have this configured in /etc/security/limits.conf?
Actually, I don't know what I've been smoking... it works as expected.
O_o
Mike
--- End Message ---
