Re: IMPORTANT: Unstable fixes not in frozen
Christian Schwarz:
>
> On 30 Apr 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > If you're going to do that, could you also make the shadow-aware xdm be the
> > > default? Since bo is gonna be shadow-aware (and since that's what all other
> > > apps have done), it seems like the right thing to do.
> >
> > If there's an outstanding bug report about it, I'll try, but if Friday
Yes, please do. There are at least two outstanding bug reports (5423,
5514 - reported in November 1996, even before Debian 1.2) and the fix
is trivial (install the "xdm-shadow" binary as "xdm").
> > is the deadline there may not be enough time to build and test
> > everything (this is my first maintainer-build of the debian X
Maybe just unpack the xbase.deb binary package, move that single binary,
and re-package it. No need to rebuild anything since no real changes
are made to the binaries, just replacing one binary with another.
> I'm not really sure (I haven't switched to shadow yet) but AFAIK the
> current xdm works with plain _and_ shadow passwds, or did I miss
> something?
There are currently two xdm binaries: xdm and xdm-shadow. xdm works
only with non-shadow passwords, and xdm-shadow works with both shadow
and non-shadow passwords. So, /usr/X11R6/bin/xdm should actually be
the xdm-shadow binary.
I have reported this to the upstream XFree86 maintainers (just before
3.2) and even received a reply (promising that they will fix it), but
3.2A still has two xdm binaries (xdm and xdm-shadow). Maybe it should
be reported once again to remind them? (Do they have a bug tracking
system like Debian does?)
Marek
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: