I have received an alternative source for the file from a listmember -
thanks.
This list feels effective.
Barry
On 20/12/13 20:39, Barry Say wrote:
I am on my second cycle of LFS.
I cannot obtain the source for shadow:
http://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/releases/shadow-4.1.5.1.tar.bz2
I
I noticed that the debian site can't be reached anymore and therefore
the newest shadow tar can't be reached - if any.
Does anybody knows where the latest shadow tar's can be found - beside
the LFS site.
Regards, Frans.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http
Frans de Boer wrote:
I noticed that the debian site can't be reached anymore and therefore
the newest shadow tar can't be reached - if any.
Does anybody knows where the latest shadow tar's can be found - beside
the LFS site.
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/shadow/
-- Bruce
This is the first time I've attempted to do an LFS in several years, and of
course I can't get ONE package.
Apparently Alioth had a catastrophic drive failure about a week ago, thus
making Shadow unavailable.
I would love it if someone could post a link to a mirror or send me the
package
On 11/16/2013 7:43 PM, Nathanial Jones wrote:
I would love it if someone could post a link to a mirror or send me the
package directly.
Check your mail.
Alan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 07:57:36PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote:
On 11/16/2013 7:43 PM, Nathanial Jones wrote:
I would love it if someone could post a link to a mirror or send me the
package directly.
Check your mail.
Alan
More generally,
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org
[mailto:lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org] On Behalf Of Alan
Feuerbacher
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 7:58 PM
To: LFS Support List
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Shadow
On 11/16/2013 7:43 PM, Nathanial Jones
Hello,
The good news is that current svn pkg-shadow works, it successfully
limits the number of processes (with PAM at least, I've not tried it
without PAM). The bad news is it has other problems, passwd works but
pwconv, grpconv and chpasswd all fail with errors like this:
chpasswd: nscd exited
Sorry for the noise. My fault. Shadow-4.1.4.3 is working normally.
I've been using slim http://slim.berlios.de/ as a login manager run
from a bootscript run by init and it seems that it is not setting the
limits. If I login at the command prompt shadow sets the limits. The
reason I thought shadow
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:17:45 -0500
Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
bash has a built in ulimit command, PAM has a pam_limits module, and
shadow uses /etc/limits. I don't think any of these actually control
the limits, but sets a value for the kernel to do it. I suspect you
have
Andrew Benton wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:17:45 -0500
Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
bash has a built in ulimit command, PAM has a pam_limits module, and
shadow uses /etc/limits. I don't think any of these actually control
the limits, but sets a value for the kernel to do
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:59:25 -0500
Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
shadow-4.0.18.1 is pretty old. I figured you did a complete upgrade,
including the kernel.
No, I was using the same kernel, current linus git
If you do `ulimit -u 128` from the bash prompt, does that limit your
Andrew Benton wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:59:25 -0500
Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
shadow-4.0.18.1 is pretty old. I figured you did a complete upgrade,
including the kernel.
No, I was using the same kernel, current linus git
If you do `ulimit -u 128` from the bash prompt
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:48:38 -0500
Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
I see you tried the shadow mailing list. I hope you get an answer, but
the list seems to have a lot of spam, so I'm not sure how much it is
actually read.
That was my impression too, which is why I didn't subscribe
to
the internet so I'm hardening things up a bit).
As part of my testing I tried a fork bomb and was horrified to discover
that nothing I did with PAM could prevent the fork bomb from locking up
the system. Then I tried it on a system that didn't have PAM (it still
had just shadow) and the result was the same
shadow) and the result was the same, the fork bomb made the
system unresponsive. I can't remember what version of shadow I was
using last July but I can't make shadow-4.1.4.3 limit the number of
processes and protect against a fork bomb.
I've just rebuilt a system with shadow-4.0.18.1 and when I
as per instruction at 3.2 All packages ...
wget ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2
--2011-06-20 08:45:32--
ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2
= `shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2'
Resolving pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org
robert wrote:
as per instruction at 3.2 All packages ...
wget ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2
--2011-06-20 08:45:32--
ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2
= `shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2'
Resolving pkg
On 06/20/2011 09:14 AM, Eric Plummer wrote:
robert wrote:
as per instruction at 3.2 All packages ...
wget ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2
--2011-06-20 08:45:32--
ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2
It's great help. Thanks!
2011/6/11 Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
Nick Amor wrote:
Hi, I'm working on LFS 6.8 and I cannot download the Shadow package.
When I try to use wget it returns the message failed: connection refused.
I tried going to website to download directly and it said I
Hi, I'm working on LFS 6.8 and I cannot download the Shadow package. When I
try to use wget it returns the message failed: connection refused. I tried
going to website to download directly and it said I didn't have access on the
download page. I have searched Google and still can't find
Nick Amor wrote:
Hi, I'm working on LFS 6.8 and I cannot download the Shadow package. When I
try to use wget it returns the message failed: connection refused. I tried
going to website to download directly and it said I didn't have access on the
download page. I have searched Google
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:08:14AM +, Nick Amor wrote:
Hi, I'm working on LFS 6.8 and I cannot download the Shadow package.
When I try to use wget it returns the message failed: connection refused.
I tried going to website to download directly and it said I didn't have
access
-- although
that might help in BLFS when Shadow gets rebuilt after PAM is
installed. Still, I plan on changing the ownship and permissions back
to shadow:shadow before that I get to that point in BLFS.
Why were you thinking of making them group-writable?
I was curious if I may have missed
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian Winfrey wrote:
update:
util_linux-ng need to change permissions on /usr/lib/pkgconfig/
Why? They look OK to me.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Drew Ames jxa...@verizon.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2011 08:50 PM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
Sorry, that sounded unappreciative in retrospect, and that is not the
case. Thanks for posting you notes.
No problem! I didn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/07/2011 11:14 AM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
coreutils:
The section that has the list of files to move caused problems due to
bash's path caching. Either turn it off in pkg users bash profile or
do not move the 'mv' program until the last
Is there any problem with deferring installation of shadow until
system is ready for deployment?
Thanks,
Brian
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Brian Winfrey wrote:
Is there any problem with deferring installation of shadow until
system is ready for deployment?
No, but why would you want to do that?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Drew Ames jxa...@verizon.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2011 08:50 PM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
Sorry, that sounded unappreciative in retrospect, and that is not the
case. Thanks for posting you notes.
No problem! I didn't
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian Winfrey wrote:
Is there any problem with deferring installation of shadow until
system is ready for deployment?
No, but why would you want to do that?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
Brian Winfrey wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian Winfrey wrote:
Is there any problem with deferring installation of shadow until
system is ready for deployment?
No, but why would you want to do that?
 -- Bruce
--
http
versions and definitely needed them to overcome
problems. In a very-limited case you *might* manage to defer
installing shadow, but why take the risk ?
The more general answer is FBBG.
ĸen
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs
to do with the new LFS system. In my case, I've been playing with
newer desktop versions and definitely needed them to overcome
problems. In a very-limited case you *might* manage to defer
installing shadow, but why take the risk ?
The more general answer is FBBG.
ĸen
--
das eine Mal als
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Drew Ames jxa...@verizon.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2011 08:50 PM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
Sorry, that sounded unappreciative in retrospect, and that is not the
case. Thanks for posting you notes.
No problem! I didn't
Brian Winfrey wrote:
update:
util_linux-ng need to change permissions on /usr/lib/pkgconfig/
Why? They look OK to me.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
point of building Shadow yet. But check out my build notes for LFS 6.6
here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/blog/lufbery-287892/build-notes-for-lfs-6-6-with-package-users-part-3-3258/
Please let me know what you think about the build notes and what you
find out about the shadow man
Sorry, that sounded unappreciative in retrospect, and that is not the
case. Thanks for posting you notes.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2011 08:49 PM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
point of building Shadow yet. But check out my build notes for LFS 6.6
here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/blog/lufbery-287892/build-notes-for-lfs-6-6-with-package-users-part-3-3258/
Please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2011 08:50 PM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
Sorry, that sounded unappreciative in retrospect, and that is not the
case. Thanks for posting you notes.
No problem! I didn't take it as anything but a simple thank you.
For that matter, please let me
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Drew Ames jxa...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm currently building LFS 6.7 with package users, and I'm not at the
point of building Shadow yet. But check out my build notes for LFS 6.6
here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/blog/lufbery-287892/build-notes
indicates no attempt to
install them. They were built. I ran them from the
'shadow-n.n.n/src' directory. Now I'm not sure about the state of the
environment. I realized I had an issue when I attempted the command
to disable mailbox creation.
Any help is appreciated.
Thank you,
Brian
I have
It looks like these bugs noted in the Package Users hint for shadow
have been handled in LFS Stable.
1) coreutils' groups is installed in /usr/bin and shadow's
groups is installed in /bin, so it's enough to delete shadow's groups
after installation.
2) The manpage
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:50:53AM -0800, Brian Winfrey wrote:
However, I was unable to find a references to the foreign language and
su man pages in the make file.
By default shadow wants to install non-English manpages.
you will have to remove the su.1 manpage manually as root
I don't use package-users, so know nothing about the su.1 page, but
why would you expect to NOT install manpages provided by a package ?
The su.1 problem was one of permissions. While LFS did not install su,
it did install the man page. It apparently has been fixed in stable.
I don't have a
The only deviation I have made is in the configure parameters - I
added '--disable-nls' per ABOUT-NLS file.
It seems as if files are not installing (pwconv, grpconv and
/etc/defaults/useradd for example). The log indicates no attempt to
install them. They were built. I ran them from the
'shadow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/14/2011 01:50 PM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
It looks like these bugs noted in the Package Users hint for shadow
have been handled in LFS Stable.
1) coreutils' groups is installed in /usr/bin and shadow's
groups is installed
or install shadow, so I
had no useradd, no ability to log in as root, etc. It took a little
bit of reading to figure out what happened, and then I rebooted the
machine using the LiveCD image, and did the build and install
by hand, after which it now boots and runs just fine (such as
it is, of course
Hello LFS User
I need some help!
Where I can Download Shadow 4.1.2.1 or 4.1.2.2.
I want to Install LFS 6.4 but I can't Download from
ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.2.1.tar.bz2
I get a time Out from wget.
Can give me somebody an another link to this shadow version
Carsten Feuls wrote:
Hello LFS User
I need some help!
Where I can Download Shadow 4.1.2.1 or 4.1.2.2.
I want to Install LFS 6.4 but I can't Download from
ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.2.1.tar.bz2
I get a time Out from wget.
Can give me somebody an another link
Hi.
I am building the current svn version of LFS (20081031). The shadow-4.1.2.1
package wants to install the passwd.5 and getspnam.3 man pages, already
installed by the man-pages-3.11 package.
What man pages are better? If we prefer the version of the man-pages-3.11
package, we can use commands
Juan A. Moreno wrote these words on 11/03/08 12:52 CST:
What man pages are better?
I would prefer to use the Shadow man pages. IMO, it's better to use
man pages from the native package rather than the generic ones from
the man-pages package.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld
On Monday 03 November 2008 20:08:12 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Juan A. Moreno wrote these words on 11/03/08 12:52 CST:
What man pages are better?
I would prefer to use the Shadow man pages. IMO, it's better to use
man pages from the native package rather than the generic ones from
the man-pages
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:01:28PM +0100, Juan A. Moreno wrote:
On Monday 03 November 2008 20:08:12 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Juan A. Moreno wrote these words on 11/03/08 12:52 CST:
What man pages are better?
I would prefer to use the Shadow man pages. IMO, it's better to use
man pages
On Feb 14, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 2/14/07, Arden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
/usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
Should we be addressing this? I noticed that in Fedora they remove the
scsi directory from the
On 3/2/07, Arden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 14, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 2/14/07, Arden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
/usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
Should we be addressing this? I noticed that in Fedora they
On 2/14/07, Arden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
/usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
Should we be addressing this? I noticed that in Fedora they remove the
scsi directory from the generated headers. DIY is doing something
similar.
On 1/4/07, Julien Lecomte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I've never tried using suauth, but I just looked at the source, and it
is only enabled if you're using PAM.
Thanks for pointing this out; I've then tried to configure shadow
(4.0.15) with and without the 'libpam
, 600) only contains
root:ALL EXCEPT GROUP wheel:DENY
I've never tried using suauth, but I just looked at the source, and it
is only enabled if you're using PAM. BLFS has support for building
shadow against PAM and/or cracklib. Read the warnings, though. You
don't want to get into a situation where
Dan Nicholson wrote on 04-01-07 02:13:
I've never tried using suauth, but I just looked at the source, and it
is only enabled if you're using PAM. BLFS has support for building
shadow against PAM and/or cracklib. Read the warnings, though. You
don't want to get into a situation where you can't
from /etc/login.defs doesn't seem to be used.
Otherwise, my /etc/login.access exists as root:root-600, but is all
commented out, and relevant parts of /etc/login.defs (also
root:root-600) are:
SU_NAME su
DEFAULT_HOMEno
# SU_WHEEL_ONLY no
My shadow was installed as the 6.2
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Nikolai wrote:
I am using the development LFS, and after the installation of the
shadow package, when I run pwconv, the program quits with no error
message and error status of 1. The lock files stay on the /etc
folder, but no shadow file is created
I am using the development LFS, and after the installation of the shadow
package, when I run pwconv, the program quits with no error message and
error status of 1. The lock files stay on the /etc folder, but no shadow
file is created. Even when I fake a shadow file; I can't use
user{add,del
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Nikolai wrote:
I am using the development LFS, and after the installation of the shadow
package, when I run pwconv, the program quits with no error message and error
status of 1. The lock files stay on the /etc folder, but no shadow file is
created. Even when I fake
root.
I installed shadow as a package user and it took me a while to get my
head round it!
I think that the issue is with the permissions of the programs which get
installed (remember that the wrapper scripts which are installed in the
package users hint don't allow any programs
As the book recommended, I used the package user manner as the hint
given by Matthias during the whole chroot phase.
When I processed to install shadow package, of course, as user named
shadow. I did everything exactly as the book says, except for
installing CrackLib first and removing just
彭畅 wrote these words on 01/21/06 20:52 CST:
As the book recommended, I used the package user manner as the hint
given by Matthias during the whole chroot phase.
As has been discussed before, and most agreeing, the verbiage in the
LFS book that recommends using the package user hint should be
no difference..
now I am in ch-6, installing shadow. I could install
it without a problem but when configuring
pwconv went well but in grpconv my box stuck- hanged
!! this happened many times and the command did not
end ... what should i do ?
I have a 3.0Gz, 1GB ram pc with 2GB for swap..for
info... I am
Hello Jim,
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5:21:01 PM, you wrote:
JG I just tested the Sparc64 multilib version. No problems here.
JG Can you verify /etc/passwd, /etc/group, /etc/shadow, and /etc/gshadow exist.
JG --
JG --
JG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JG LFS User # 2577
JG
run the following utilities
pwconv
grpconv
This should fix your problem
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See
jaca wrote:
Hello Jim,
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5:21:01 PM, you wrote:
JG I just tested the Sparc64 multilib version. No problems here.
JG Can you verify /etc/passwd, /etc/group, /etc/shadow, and /etc/gshadow exist.
In addition to Jim's recommendations, also check your /etc
Hello Matthew,
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 7:47:12 PM, you wrote:
MB jaca wrote:
Hello Jim,
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5:21:01 PM, you wrote:
JG I just tested the Sparc64 multilib version. No problems here.
JG Can you verify /etc/passwd, /etc/group, /etc/shadow, and /etc/gshadow
In section 6.54.2 there are instructions about
running the commands:
pwconv
grpconv
Did you already do that?
Luca
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Hello Luca,
Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 6:11:15 PM, you wrote:
LD In section 6.54.2 there are instructions about
LD running the commands:
LD pwconv
LD grpconv
LD Did you already do that?
LD Luca
LD --
LD http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
LD FAQ:
Keith wrote:
Gotten to section 6.54 setting up Shadow-4.0.9. The installation went
ok as far as I can tell and I went back and double-checked my commands
for configuring it after the make install. I got to the part where it
says to set the root password by typing passwd root. I was under
: the su binary was
owned by package user shadow and the setuid bit was set. User shadow
was not permitted to view the password file. I made root the owner of
the su binary, which solved my problem. (I guess i must have
accidentally ignored this..). One weird thing though: the package user
system's
frequently have to switch users, by using su.
Some time ago, I installed the package shadow, and from this moment
on, my su binary refuses to work with me any longer. I have followed the
guidelines in the LFS book and the user-package-system very precise.
Whenever i try to use su (even as root), I
Hi, All.
Is there any reason to give --libdir=/lib and after make install
moving libs to /usr/lib ?
Why not to give --libdir=/usr/lib ?
--
With best wishes,
Sergey Ilyevsky.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ:
78 matches
Mail list logo
