DJ Lucas wrote:
> Just a thought, but if you have the copy of login.defs, that could be
> used to extract the original default path as it might have already been
> modified by the user.
>
Changes comitted in r4900. Needs merged to 6.1 branch.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> DJ, please provide examples of what you want to do to fix the PATH
> issue. I have an /etc/profile set up which installs a base PATH.
> Each user has a .bashrc which sources /etc/profile. Root's .bashrc
> also sets up /sbin and /usr/sbin. And, though I'm not sure it come
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I simply don't see any of these PATH issues. I'm sure it is because
> of the way I have things set up,
Yes. If you lose your .bashrc (or other startup) files you'll likely
see the problems.
> I can't see these issues really being any different
> from 4.0.9 to 4.0.11.1 (PA
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 18:31 CST:
> Yes, it should be required by 'session' not 'auth'. _Needs_ to be
> changed only in /etc/pam.d/su, but to be proper, even though auth will
> always occur for login, it should be changed there too.
Could you outline what you are talking about by
ECI wrote:
>>>
I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently
>>
>>upgraded
>>
PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev
>>
>>book
>>
and have a problem with su and PATH variable.
>>>
>>>
>>>This issue was recently discovered and a bug ha
> >
> >
> >>I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently
> upgraded
> >>PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev
> book
> >>and have a problem with su and PATH variable.
> >
> >
> > This issue was recently discovered and a bug has already been ent
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>
> I do, in that we take away the default bash path with shadow, but adding
> in PAM removes the shadow path that was set previously. It's just wrong
> to change the (expected) path without warning the user.
>
Ugh..I need to clarify my thoughts before I hit send I was r
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/04/05 21:10 CST:
>
>
>>As the bug report shows, add
>>'PATH DEFAULT=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:... OVERIDE=${PATH}' to
>>/etc/security/pam_env.conf to create a valid user path. For a default
>>root (superuser) path, create a valid /root/
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> ECI wrote these words on 08/04/05 10:04 CST:
>
>
>>I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently upgraded
>>PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev book
>>and have a problem with su and PATH variable.
>
>
> This issue w
ECI wrote these words on 08/04/05 10:04 CST:
> I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently upgraded
> PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev book
> and have a problem with su and PATH variable.
This issue was recently discovered and a bug has
Hello,
I'm using a LFS 5.1.1 with cracklib + pam + shadow. I have recently upgraded
PAM (0.80) and shadow (4.0.10) and cracklib according to the BLFS dev book
and have a problem with su and PATH variable.
Here it is :
1# su -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]
1# echo $PATH
/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin: <= path
11 matches
Mail list logo