Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/24/05 14:39 CST: > Wow...lot of changes. Agree on all of the above. Good work! Thanks. I've committed the update to 2.8.3. If I don't get the Heimdal update finished by the time the book renders again, I'll place a note in the Heimdal instructions that the CrackLib stuff is not working at the moment. I hope, however, to have Heimdal updated by then. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 17:02:00 up 113 days, 16:35, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/24/05 00:00 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: >>I have got Cracklib-2.8.3 ready to commit. I also finished the patch. >>Would you like me to commit the update? > > Yeah, go ahead and do it if you've already indexed and described the new > programs in /usr/sbin. Yes, this is done. However, I'd like to pass a couple of things by you. 1. I'm moving the installation of the wordlist to the root installation steps *after* the build steps. This way there's only a one-time root installation instead of twice. 2. I'd like to use the cracklib-words target in the create-cracklib-dict routine instead of your suggestion in the bug to use the words symlink instead. It could be that some users may already have a /usr/share/dict/words target, so we should use the cracklib-words list instead. 3. I have a new line in the "command explanations" section about the 'words' symlink. It mentions the previous text about the historical use of 'words', and additionally it now mentions that it is optional. 4. extra.words explanation text is now also in the 'command explanations' section. 5. I'd like to change extra.words to cracklib-extra-words. That way we would now have cracklib-words and cracklib-extra-words in /usr/share/dict. 6. After the root installation, I think putting in an instruction to run 'make test' by the unprivileged user would be appropriate. Once I hear from you that you agree, or provide better suggestions to the above, I'll commit the update to 2.8.3 -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 12:02:00 up 113 days, 11:35, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.09, 0.03 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
Randy McMurchy wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/22/05 20:28 CST: > >>Randy McMurchy wrote: >> >>>Does this sound like a good plan? DJ? >> >>Looks like we crossed between send/receive times. Sounds good to me. > > > DJ, > > I have got Cracklib-2.8.3 ready to commit. I also finished the patch. > Would you like me to commit the update? > Yeah, go ahead and do it if you've already indexed and described the new programs in /usr/sbin. I planned on doing it today, but my scheduled 2 hour help a friend setup an internet connection for his 'new' (old) business, turned into a 10 hour network setup. Frustrated, and way OT for this list: If anybody has to deal with old standalone versions of peachtree, do a new install and use the internal backup feature from the old version, and create a new company in the new version (from the backup). And Saturdays are supposed to be my day off...yeah like I ever get one of those. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
Randy McMurchy wrote: > > 1. It appears to check for X, specifically libICE (the configure > script has notes this is required for SunOS). I'm not sure what would > happen if it doesn't find the X lib. I didn't follow the configure > script to find out (damn auto-tools long-ass scripts). We need to > determine whether or not to list X as a dependency. > Yea...I had built it with x installed, but nothing is dynamicly linked against any X libs. I'll dig a little deeper to see why, but the x include is only shown in configure. What I dont' get is why it's not used anywhere else in the source tree. It's just a check that uses to find the headers. The same check later defines X_DISPLAY_MISSING if it hasn't found Intrinsic.h, neither of which are used anywhere else in the source tree. :-/ Later still, if not defined, then a check is made for libICE. "-I/usr/include/X11" eventually makes it into X_CLFAGS which is never used other than being set. I say no on the optional dep...AFAICT, the end result is that it'll check for it, but do nothing with it. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/22/05 20:26 CST: > Randy if you got a lot going on right now, I can take care of Shadow and > PAM, I just didn't want to complicate any other changes that you might > have wanted to make since you were assigned to Shadow. I've already > made the changes locally as I've been using them for a couple of weeks. > Cracklib too, but it will break heimdal if it goes in right this second. Please read my previous message. I'm about to commit the Shadow changes, so if you can knock out the PAM and cracklib update we'd be all set. Do comment out anything about the Heimdal patch in the Cracklib instructions for the time being. I'll put it in after testing Cracklib against Heimdal. Once I see your commit with PAM and cracklib, I'll place a note in the Heimdal instructions to not use Cracklib stuff until I fix it. Sound good? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 20:27:01 up 111 days, 20:00, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.15, 0.07 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/22/05 19:32 CST: > > >>>If I can get patches for Cracklib and Heimdal prepared tonight or >>>tomorrow, are we going to try to get the new Cracklib into BLFS before >>>the release of 6.1? >> >>I don't think we are that close to release yet. If you are comfortable >>with the changes, they can go into 6.1. > > > Okay. I worked with the cracklib package enough now to know that I > can create the Heimdal patches. > > I'm going to commit the changes to Shadow to update it to 4.0.9 so > that we're at the same rev version as LFS. > > This leaves updating Linux-PAM to 0.80 and Cracklib to 2.8.3. For the > short time being, I suggest we update these two packages and allow (ask) > folks to start big-time testing. Should be a no-brainer, but extensive > testing would be good. > > In the meantime, let's not put a Cracklib-Hiemdal patch in the Cracklib > package until I finish with it (should be tonight, but most likely > will be 'morrow now). Nothing that I'll do with Heimdal patches affects > the Cracklib package as my method for creating the libcrack_heimdal > library is to duplicate the lib directory in the Cracklib tree and > make all mods there. So, there is no affect on the libcrack library > whatsoever. > > I'll also put a note in the Heimdal instructions saying that the the > Cracklib stuff is being prepared and to not use it for the time being. > > This will allow us to get started testing the Cracklib/PAM/Shadow stuff > which is most important after all. > > Does this sound like a good plan? DJ? > Looks like we crossed between send/receive times. Sounds good to me. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
Randy McMurchy wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/17/05 16:19 CST: > > >>Haven't created anything yet except the shadow patch, but I did go ahead >>and get notes ready for upgrade of all three (cracklib-pam-shadow), but >>didn't want to proceed untill I had a test case availble so that Heimdal >>didn't get broken. > > > I took a look at the new Cracklib and it looks simple enough to > create a new patch to create a libcrack_heimdal library and associated > header file. I want to rename the lib from libcrack_krb5 to > libcrack_heimdal as MIT Kerberos is not set up to use Cracklib. > > Here are some other notes: > > 1. It appears to check for X, specifically libICE (the configure > script has notes this is required for SunOS). I'm not sure what would > happen if it doesn't find the X lib. I didn't follow the configure > script to find out (damn auto-tools long-ass scripts). We need to > determine whether or not to list X as a dependency. > > 2. It creates a static library now (no big deal). > > 3. There is a test program using the test-data I believe first > originated on this list! > > Anyway, here's the million dollar question: > > If I can get patches for Cracklib and Heimdal prepared tonight or > tomorrow, are we going to try to get the new Cracklib into BLFS before > the release of 6.1? > > If so, we need to thoroughly check out /cracklib/pam/shadow. I > suppose we would want to update the book to the latest PAM as well. > I can check out and confirm proper working with Heimdal. > > DJ sent me a patch to update Shadow to 4.0.9, so this will go in > tonight. > > Do we have enough time before release to thoroughly test out the > Cracklib/PAM/Shadow combination before release? > > If the answer to this question is no, then I'll probably postpone > working on the Cracklib patches until after release. > Randy if you got a lot going on right now, I can take care of Shadow and PAM, I just didn't want to complicate any other changes that you might have wanted to make since you were assigned to Shadow. I've already made the changes locally as I've been using them for a couple of weeks. Cracklib too, but it will break heimdal if it goes in right this second. Let me know. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/22/05 19:32 CST: >>If I can get patches for Cracklib and Heimdal prepared tonight or >>tomorrow, are we going to try to get the new Cracklib into BLFS before >>the release of 6.1? > > I don't think we are that close to release yet. If you are comfortable > with the changes, they can go into 6.1. Okay. I worked with the cracklib package enough now to know that I can create the Heimdal patches. I'm going to commit the changes to Shadow to update it to 4.0.9 so that we're at the same rev version as LFS. This leaves updating Linux-PAM to 0.80 and Cracklib to 2.8.3. For the short time being, I suggest we update these two packages and allow (ask) folks to start big-time testing. Should be a no-brainer, but extensive testing would be good. In the meantime, let's not put a Cracklib-Hiemdal patch in the Cracklib package until I finish with it (should be tonight, but most likely will be 'morrow now). Nothing that I'll do with Heimdal patches affects the Cracklib package as my method for creating the libcrack_heimdal library is to duplicate the lib directory in the Cracklib tree and make all mods there. So, there is no affect on the libcrack library whatsoever. I'll also put a note in the Heimdal instructions saying that the the Cracklib stuff is being prepared and to not use it for the time being. This will allow us to get started testing the Cracklib/PAM/Shadow stuff which is most important after all. Does this sound like a good plan? DJ? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 20:15:00 up 111 days, 19:48, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/17/05 16:19 CST: > Haven't created anything yet except the shadow patch, but I did go ahead > and get notes ready for upgrade of all three (cracklib-pam-shadow), but > didn't want to proceed untill I had a test case availble so that Heimdal > didn't get broken. I took a look at the new Cracklib and it looks simple enough to create a new patch to create a libcrack_heimdal library and associated header file. I want to rename the lib from libcrack_krb5 to libcrack_heimdal as MIT Kerberos is not set up to use Cracklib. Here are some other notes: 1. It appears to check for X, specifically libICE (the configure script has notes this is required for SunOS). I'm not sure what would happen if it doesn't find the X lib. I didn't follow the configure script to find out (damn auto-tools long-ass scripts). We need to determine whether or not to list X as a dependency. 2. It creates a static library now (no big deal). 3. There is a test program using the test-data I believe first originated on this list! Anyway, here's the million dollar question: If I can get patches for Cracklib and Heimdal prepared tonight or tomorrow, are we going to try to get the new Cracklib into BLFS before the release of 6.1? If so, we need to thoroughly check out /cracklib/pam/shadow. I suppose we would want to update the book to the latest PAM as well. I can check out and confirm proper working with Heimdal. DJ sent me a patch to update Shadow to 4.0.9, so this will go in tonight. Do we have enough time before release to thoroughly test out the Cracklib/PAM/Shadow combination before release? If the answer to this question is no, then I'll probably postpone working on the Cracklib patches until after release. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 18:44:00 up 111 days, 18:17, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
Randy McMurchy wrote: > If you've already created new patches, please upload them to the > LFS patch repo and I'll pick them up from there and do significant > testing. > Haven't created anything yet except the shadow patch, but I did go ahead and get notes ready for upgrade of all three (cracklib-pam-shadow), but didn't want to proceed untill I had a test case availble so that Heimdal didn't get broken. > This will be about a week from now. By next weekend for sure. From > now until then, I'll be updating the other packages I have assigned > to me in Bugzilla. I have GnuCash almost finished (dependency hell!) > and will commit that update today. > I am currently running shadow 4.0.9/10/cvs11? (9 with the patch is fine for BLFS to match LFS), LinuxPAM-0.80, and Cracklib-2.8.3. I have taken notes for changes to the build instructions. Cracklib-2.8.3: ./configure --prefix=/usr --datadir=/lib && make && make install mv /usr/lib/libcrack.so /lib && create-cracklib-dict /usr/share/dict/words \ /usr/share/dict/extra.words Linux_PAM-0.80 add the configure switch --manpath=/usr/share/man and nix the 'manpath' sed Shadow-4.0.9: Add the patch, and the for loop shoud be extended: CHFN_AUTH \ ULIMIT ENV_TZ ENV_HZ ENV_SUPATH \ FAILLOG_ENAB QUOTAS_ENAB FTMP_FILE \ ENV_PATH QMAIL_DIR MAIL_DIR MAIL_FILE and A note added that says something to the effect of "untill login.defs is setup corectly, (in the test before configuring) login will generate several warnings about unknown parameters, this is normal." -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New cracklib and Heimdal
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/16/05 19:39 CST: > Anybody have the old installed and working? Need testers for the new > cracklib-2.8.3 and Heimdal. One of the last things I am going to do on my current LFS-6.1 test build is update Heimdal and do a full Kerberos installation. Typically, I just install the Kerberos libs into /usr/lib and everything else in a not-in-the-path directory. I typically don't install a Kerberos authentication database on my test system either, but will when I do the next Heimdal package update. At this time I was going to revise my Heimdal/Cracklib patch and try to make it work with the new cracklib. Of course, this requires the Cracklib/Heimdal patch to be updated as well. If you've already created new patches, please upload them to the LFS patch repo and I'll pick them up from there and do significant testing. This will be about a week from now. By next weekend for sure. From now until then, I'll be updating the other packages I have assigned to me in Bugzilla. I have GnuCash almost finished (dependency hell!) and will commit that update today. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 13:00:00 up 106 days, 12:33, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.04 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
