Re: Re^2: Another shadow question[A
Marek Michalkiewicz writes:
> For now just leave the standard passwd.5 man page (from manpages). The
> less files it overwrites the better...
> /etc/securetty and /etc/shells work just fine with shadow, no need to
> replace them. Maybe they should be in base? As for vipw/vigr: useradd,
Yes, I think base would be appropriate.
> Not yet. Hopefully soon... Other packages which don't yet support
> shadow passwords (that I know of): netatalk, xbase (more precisely,
> xdm and also HasShadowPasswd in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/linux.cf
> so that xmkmf does the right thing).
Hmm, should the shadow package update /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/linux.cf
if it exists?
> GNU su from sh-utils also (even without my intervention - autoconf found
> shadow support in libc and did the right thing), sulogin (from sysvinit)
> and screen-3.7.1 (again thanks to autoconf). I just sent patches to the
> maintainers of pppd, samba, vlock and xtrlock.
Wait a moment, does that mean I don't have to include the shadow-su binary?
> (Shadow also provides su and it has some more nice/fascist features, but
> people who are on the side of the masses will not like it very much :-).
Could you give us some more info on that. is it desirable to have the shadow
su, or should we better stay put?
Michael Meskes | _____ ________ __ ____
| / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___ __________
firstname.lastname@example.org | \__ \/ /_ / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
| ___/ / __/ /__ __/\__, / __/ / (__ )
Use Debian Linux! | /____/_/ /_/ /____/\___/_/ /____/