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
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 can get to alioth.debian but can get no access to to shadow
I have tried to register twice and failed both times.
Is there a problem?
Barry
--
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
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-su
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
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,
http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.o
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 a
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 t
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 s
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 e
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:48:38 -0500
Bruce Dubbs 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 subsc
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:59:25 -0500
> Bruce Dubbs 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 -
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:59:25 -0500
Bruce Dubbs 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 Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:17:45 -0500
> Bruce Dubbs 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
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:17:45 -0500
Bruce Dubbs 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
> ha
ed it on a system that didn't have PAM (it still
> had just 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 a
ssh 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
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/
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
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.de
It's great help. Thanks!
2011/6/11 Bruce Dubbs
> 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
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 a
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
>
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 an
o be group writable -- 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?
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/19/2011 02:11 PM, bsquared wrote:
> Drew,
> I had another question about the tips you had posted for shadow. I
> wonder if you could verify the permissions, it seems to me that they
> should be group writable as well.
>
> -
Drew,
I had another question about the tips you had posted for shadow. I
wonder if you could verify the permissions, it seems to me that they
should be group writable as well.
-rwsr-xr-x "/bin/su" root:shadow
-rwsr-xr-x "/usr/bin/chage" root:shadow
-rwsr-xr-x "/u
-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
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Drew Ames 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 take it as an
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Dubbs 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: http://www.linuxfromscratch.
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
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Drew Ames 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 take it as an
from time to time, people suggest we don't
> actually *need* the autotools - it all depends on what you are going
> 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-lim
stem. 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 Tragödie, da
Brian Winfrey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs 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
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs 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://linuxfro
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Drew Ames 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 take it as an
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
Unsub
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
-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
-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-p
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
> 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
&g
log 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.
>
>
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Brian Winfrey wrote:
>
> Currently, I have an altogether different problem. Shadow is not
> installing all files, and I may have screwed things up. Even though
> install indicated success and the logs looked good, some files did not
> install.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Drew Ames 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/bui
-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'
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 t
> 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
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 manp
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 inst
y). Well, it did not build 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 run
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 g
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 ve
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
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 gene
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]
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
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 Fe
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 t
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.
http://w
Galaxy Travel wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Arden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LFS Support List"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:01 PM
> Subject: LFS-20070209 shadow not playing nice with more_control_pkg_man
>
&g
- Original Message -
From: "Arden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LFS Support List"
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: LFS-20070209 shadow not playing nice with more_control_pkg_man
> After installing shadow-4.0.17, with the more_control
After installing shadow-4.0.17, with the more_control_and_pkg_man
scripts, and creating a pkgusr for the following packages I see this;
useradd:unknown GID 1000
mail group doesn't exist
creating file 0600 mail
--or something very close to that. It creates a mail file in
/var/mail/ and lo
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
r problem.
> >
> > When I 'su', it doesn't seem that '/etc/suauth' is used. For example, my
> > /etc/suauth (root:root, 600) only contains
> > root:ALL EXCEPT GROUP wheel:DENY
>
> I've never tried using suauth, but I just looked at the so
en I 'su', it doesn't seem that '/etc/suauth' is used. For example, my
>> /etc/suauth (root:root, 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 yo
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
eem that '/etc/suauth' is used. For example, my
> /etc/suauth (root:root, 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
shad
fore being returned to the shell prompt, that is, FAIL_DELAY
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_
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
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 a
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{ad
su
to any user other than 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
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
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
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Hardik Mehta wrote:
i tried again and ldd /usr/sbin/grpconv shows all the
lib files in /lib
that's good.
now i have decided not to run grpconv just run pwconv
and go ahead.. I dont think this will cause any probs
in future. will it ?
The only likely problem would be
--- Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the hint, but the first
> question to ask is: do
> you really need to run grpconv ? I never use group
> passwords, so the
> only reason I run grpconv is to test the
> instructions in the development
> book.
>
> Normally,
--- Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Normally, there aren't a lot of groups so this is
> definitely not a cpu
> intensive operation. Possibly, it has managed to
> link against something
> from the host system, such as PAM. Check what ldd
> say about grpconv.
>
> You could also t
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
Hallo all,
some bg information for ur reference:
I am trying to make lfs on my existing slackware-10.2,
kernel 2.6.14.3
I am following the hint for making lfs on existing
partition.. actually upto the point where I m right
now this hint makes no difference..
now I am in ch-6, installing shadow
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 y
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 chec
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 t
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]
J
I just tested the Sparc64 multilib version. No problems here.
Can you verify /etc/passwd, /etc/group, /etc/shadow, and /etc/gshadow exist.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
Hello
I still have problem with shadow package. It compiles witout problems.
But the programs passwd, login and others douesn't work properly. I
can execute them but they exit immediately without waiting for my
input. I've checked the instructions in book (Version
7.0-cross-lfs-200510
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: http://www.linux
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
Hi all
I have some problems with shadow package. The package compiles without
errors but passwd doesn't ask for password. It looks like it does
nothing. The same problem is with login.
How can i find the solution to correct this problem
Regards
Jacek H
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
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
problem myself: 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
m. So,
to install packages, i 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.
es, i 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 s
Hi Randy,
On 27 Jul 2005 19:39:40 Randy McMurchy wrote:
I still think your issue is the new changes in the sed command in
the BLFS Shadow instructions.
Yeah. I also thought this was not due to HLFS build because earlier also
while building BLFS, similar
errors had occured but went away
Sergey Ilyevsky wrote:
And yet another question ;-) : what happen if I don't move libs to
satisfy FHS requirements?
Thanks.
Depends. If /usr is not a separate partition, then you should be ok no
matter how you go about it - things will be available as needed.
However, if /usr is on it's own p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Is there any reason to give "--libdir=/lib" and after "make install"
>> moving libs to /usr/lib ?
>> Why not to give "--libdir=/usr/lib" ?
>
> The login program is in /bin an
Sergey Ilyevsky wrote these words on 03/08/05 15:59 CST:
> Is there any reason to give "--libdir=/lib" and after "make install"
> moving libs to /usr/lib ?
> Why not to give "--libdir=/usr/lib" ?
The login program is in /bin and it is linked to the shado
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: http://www.lin
100 matches
Mail list logo
