The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comp.os.linux.announce backlog

dwarf@polaris.net (Dale Scheetz)  wrote on 06.06.97 in <Pine.LNX.3.95.970606154739.28307C-100000@dwarf.polaris.net>:

> On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> > > This should give us the time to take another crack at fixing xbase? Or
> > > are we going to go with the pre-release version?
> >
> > Since XFree86 3.3 is now released, I will inform the CD manufacturers
> > that it might make sense for them to wait for it. Those who are using
> > FTP can use the present xdm and you should put the work-around in your
> > Upgrade document, since it doesn't affect new systems.
> >
> OK, let me make sure I understand this correctly. We are talking about
> "user can't loggin after upgrade" right? I understand the fix is to first
> de-configure and then re-configure shadow. What I don't understand is

*Now* I recognize that bug. I thought we had worked out a simple solution  
to it, quite some time ago, after I had reported it? What happened?

And what does it have to do with xbase? It was the package (I forget  
which) containing the shadow support that did it, or actually it was the  
pre- or postrm script of the old shadow package replaced by it, which left  
a passwd file only readable by root.

> quite how this happens. Is it the fact that xbase doesn't check which
> should be configured but simply makes both xdm and xdm-shadow available.

xdm-shadow should be configured. There's no reason to use the other. (I  
thought they were actually one and the same by now?)

> confused. It looks to me like the problem shows up with fresh installs

Now I'm really confused. How _can_ this problem exist with fresh installs  
- people that never had the experimental shadow stuff installed?

> not show up on an upgrade if xbase gets updated before shadow. This makes
> me think that with new installs shadow should not be activated if xdm is
> going to be used to boot the system at the end of the installation.

Actually, this is probably always a bad idea. If anything goes wrong (such  
as the X server not configured quite right for your graphic card and  
dying), you will have serious problems. Test first, activate for boot  
later.


MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .