Hi! On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:50:25 +0200, I wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:26:00 +0200, I wrote: > > On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:21:01 +0200, Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net> wrote: > > > Pádraig Brady wrote: > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: [PULL] su > > > > Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 14:58:01 +0200 > > > > From: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@suse.de> > > > > To: util-linux@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > coreutils isn't really interested in maintaining su anymore. > > > > Distributions have to add custom patches to fix bugs and add > > > > features. The worst offender is probably the pam patch. Fortunately > > > > we managed to sync the patch between openSUSE and Fedora meanwhile. > > > > Over time the risk that the patches divert again increases though. > > > > Since util-linux now contains a common login program it looks like a > > > > good new home for su too. > > > > > > > > To integrate su into util-linux I've extracted the history of the su > > > > program until the last GPLv2 version (they've changed to GPLv3 > > > > meanwhile) from coreutils' git and merged it with util-linux. > > > > Then I've added the patches used in Fedora and openSUSE and fixed the > > > > files to actually build. > > > > > > > > You can find the result in branch su-v1 (ff6b15d) at > > > > git@github.com:lnussel/util-linux.git > > > > > > > > I've also filed a pull request on github: > > > > https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/pull/10 > > > > > > > > Originally I had planned to implement separate tty allocation for > > > > the child program on top of that to get rid of the evil setsid > > > > patch. It turned out to be more complicated than I thought though. The > > > > change would be too massive to backport anyways I guess. So the next > > > > step would be to rip out the non-pam legacy stuff and clean up the code > > > > to make it readable again. > > > > > I would like to remove su.c, if/when possible from coreutils. > > > The last time I proposed that, the Hurd was mentioned as a > > > reason not to, since they relied on the su from coreutils. > > > > > > Is that still the case, and if so, can you (the Hurd) switch > > > to the one from util-linux? > > > > Yes, that appears to be fine -- despite its name, we're using a lot of > > executables provided by util-linux. > > > > I'll test the branch in the lnussel repository and report back. > > A minor portability patch was all that was needed, > <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C1337971261-20684-1-git-send-email-thomas@codesourcery.com%3E>, > and all that has now been merged to util-linux. > > > How to coordinate this with Debian? Chances are that an updated > coreutils release with su removed is made before an util-linux release > with su added. On the other hand -- why doesn't Debian GNU/Hurd use the same su as Debian GNU/Linux uses? Grüße, Thomas
Attachment:
pgpRN1pE2DlrT.pgp
Description: PGP signature