On 04/06/2014 09:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > baho utot wrote: >> On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: >>> On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: >>> >>>> the configure should be: >>>> >>>> ./configure --disable-nologin >>>> >>>> as nologin was previously installed by shadow >>> Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is >>> desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. >> I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is >> already installed by another package. >> You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. >> >>> Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than >>> shadow's groups binary. >> There isn't a "groups" executeable installed by shadow. > Yes, we do disable that.
Then why not disable nologin in shadow as well? Why over write only one of them? > >>> Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, >>> could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. >> On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages >> before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the >> Makefiles. >> >> For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and >> you will not know the over write has occurred. > That seems like the correct behavior to me. > > -- Bruce but not consistent as above -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
