[arch-dev-public] shadow package history
Hi guys, i wanted to fix FS#16802 which is about newusers and chpasswd utilities from shadow. Even the fix is available in bugtracker, i'm not quite sure if we have this bug because something got changed upstream. I've found out that we are using a custom default pam module for about all except one and that in shadow source they provide in etc/pam.d some configuration. I don't know the history of the arch package and why we are using custom configs and i've found that any other distribution out there doesn't have this bug that we have. So my worries are that we kinda package shadow very badly. So anyone know why we are using that custom config? Anyone know how to fix shadow? Personally i don't know a thing about it. -- Ionut
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think there's any specific reason beyond "that's how we did it in the past". What are the pros and cons to getting rid of this custom module?
Am 21.05.2010 17:37, schrieb Ionut Biru:
So anyone know why we are using that custom config? Anyone know how to fix shadow? Personally i don't know a thing about it.
We've had some of those cases recently. Most of the time, upstream didn't provide configuration files in the past, or provided broken configuration files which have since then been fixed. What we should do in these cases is evaluate if switching to the upstream configuration leads to a reasonable default configuration for Arch, and a smooth upgrade path. I didn't look at shadow in particular, but my guess is that their defaults would be safe to use.
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Ionut Biru
-
Thomas Bächler