[arch-general] pacmatic. Was: PAM 1.3.1 -> 1.5.1 did pam_tally get removed?

[u34 at net9.ga]

Ben Oliver via arch-general <arch-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 2021-02-22 13:58:36, Anton Hvornum via arch-general wrote:
> >That would answer my issue yesterday, but raises another question.
> >
> >What dictates if something is worthy of being put on the bulletin
> >board on the main website?
> >
> >I added 2FA way back when to /etc/pam.d/system-login and that meant
> >that pacman placed a .pacnew file alongside the modified system-login
> >(as expected) on upgrade.
> >But the notification about this got lost in the sea of packages which
> >is on me of course. But seeing as this is a modification to a system
> >critical file can (and did) cause a complete lockout of accounts on
> >the machine due to `auth    required` being the keywords put in place.
> >I would have expected this to be on the bulletin board about possible
> >manual intervention required.
> 
> These days I don't pacman -Syu, I have a script that:
> 
> - checks the news
> - runs -Syu
> - runs pacdiff
> 

pacmatic, from community, addresses the first 2 points. And partially the
third.
I am not its author, or maintainer, or something.

--
u34

> It's saved me a lot of hassle, but doesn't catch everything.
> 
> For me, I would use an option that allowed pacman to 'pause' on messages (like 
> post install stuff) to give me time to read them.