Your message dated Sun, 11 May 2003 20:40:43 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed
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; 22 Sep 2002 06:24:09 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 22 01:24:09 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from agrenoble-102-1-2-41.abo.wanadoo.fr (jophur.dyndns.org)
[80.13.2.41]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17t0A5-0005XU-00; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:24:09 -0500
Received: from laurent by jophur.dyndns.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 17t0A1-0001om-00; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 08:24:06 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Laurent Bonnaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linuxconf: 2 violations of Debian PAM mini-policy
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.99.60
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 08:24:05 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Laurent Bonnaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: linuxconf
Version: 1.26r4-2
Severity: normal
Hi,
according to /usr/share/doc/libpam0g/Debian-PAM-MiniPolicy.gz
/etc/pam.d/linuxconf-pair is wrong in 2 respects:
1. it uses a full path to the PAM module (/lib/security/pam_pwdb.so
instead of pam_pwdb.so):
>The file should _not_ reference the full path of the modules. It only needs
>to reference the basename (eg. "pam_unix.so"). This will ensure that the
>program continues to work even if the module location changes, since
>libpam itself will resolve the location.
2. it uses pam_pwdb.so instead of pam_unix.so:
>Under no circumstances should any program in Debian use the pam_pwdb.so
>module by default. Instead the pam_unix.so module should be used. Most
>programs with RedHat support/default files will reference pam_pwdb.so in
>their example files. Do not use this. There are several problems with
>regard to pam_pwdb.so:
>...
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux jophur 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr 14 13:19:11 EST 2002 i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Versions of packages linuxconf depends on:
ii libc6 2.2.5-14.3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libdb3 3.2.9-17 Berkeley v3 Database Libraries [ru
ii libgd1 1.8.4-20 GD Graphics Library
ii libncurses5 5.2.20020112a-8 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libpam0g 0.72-35 Pluggable Authentication Modules l
ii libpng2 1.0.12-6 PNG library - runtime
ii libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 1:2.95.4-11 The GNU stdc++ library
ii libxml1 1:1.8.17-2 GNOME XML library
ii logrotate 3.6.5-1 Log rotation utility
ii netbase 4.07 Basic TCP/IP networking system
ii python2.1 2.1.3-10 An interactive object-oriented scr
ii sysvinit 2.84-3 System-V like init.
ii xlibs 4.2.1-0pre1v1 X Window System client libraries
ii zlib1g 1:1.1.4-4 compression library - runtime
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 161867-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 May 2003 10:41:36 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun May 11 05:41:35 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from bangpath.uucico.de [195.71.9.197]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 19EoGg-0005NL-00; Sun, 11 May 2003 05:41:23 -0500
Received: by bangpath.uucico.de (Postfix, from userid 10)
id C121326BB7; Sun, 11 May 2003 12:41:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by regression.cyrius.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 3E2E523D48; Sun, 11 May 2003 20:40:43 +1000 (EST)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:40:43 +1000
From: Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Removed
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_10,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_09
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
This package has been removed from Debian unstable because it has been
orphaned for a very long time and nobody adopted it. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200304/msg00005.html
for more information.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
