John Burrell wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:25:16 -0600 > >> John Burrell wrote: >>> Subject: [lfs-dev] util-linux-2.24 and nologin >>> >>> shadow installs /sbin/nologin >>> >>> util-linux-2.24 now also installs a version of nologin >>> >>> Do you want the shadow version or the util-linux version? >>> >>> There is a --disable-nologin in the configure script of >>> util-linux if you want the shadow version. >>> >>> As the book stands now, and if you install as root, you'll get >>> the util-linux version. >>> >>> Things get a little more complicated. util-linux installs a >>> version of /usr/bin/last. sysvinit also installs last. Are they >>> the same? Who knows? Not me. >>> >>> Should we have the util-linux version or the sysvinit version? >> >> You are the first to notice this. My initial reaction is to leave >> things as they are unless there is a functional issue. >> > > I suppose one counter argument would be that util-linux appears to be > actively developed - more so than shadow or sysvinit (this is just my > impression - it may not be the case over the longer term). So one > could take all the binaries from util-linux as they appear (they do > seem to be producing more of them over time) and drop the duplicates > from other packages.
Since we install util-linux after shadow, then we are "doing the right thing". A glance at the source shows sysvinit nologin to be 13 lines of code. For last, the 2 versions are both about 950 lines. I have no objection to suppressing installation of the sysvinit version, but it would take a minor hack to the Makefile. Not hard, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
