Re: Pam 0.72-26 critically broken
alternately, rolling back to -25 seems to fix all problems. i'll try your
revised package tomorrow afternoon as soon as possible. thankfully, a
user messaged me about the issue before i logged out after updating my
testing machine. =)
elijah
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:52:20 -0400
> From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>
> To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Pam 0.72-26 critically broken
> Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:56:14 -0400
> Resent-From: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Hi. I uploaded a version of PAM today that fails to minimally work.
> If you install this package, the main PAM module (pam_unix) fails to
> load. This means that login, su and other programs that ask for a
> password all fail.
>
> Needless to say this is a critical bug. A fixed version of the
> package is now available at
> http://incoming.debian.org/pam_0.72-27_i386.deb. This package will
> replace the broken one in the Debian archive tomorrow afternoon.
>
> You can gain single user access to your Debian system even with a
> broken PAM by booting it with the init=/bin/sh argument. This should
> allow you to mount the root filesystem read/write, bring up the
> network, download a new package and install it.
>
>
> Needless to say, I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused and
> would be happy to help if you have any questions about repairing any
> damaged systems. I will be more careful of my testing procedure in
> the future and will avoid introducing errors after I have already
> confirmed things work.
>
>
> - --Sam
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAjs36q0ACgkQ/I12czyGJg9iDwCeOtTwW3zRzCMhMmgsmuh2+KBI
> rywAnjMQpMUjBhP6ClI9R2CBcFzPeqon
> =URfZ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
--
--
$ chown us:us yourbase -R
Reply to: