[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: base-passwd bug?



I had the same problem.  This kind of initiative by the package
shouldn't be so passive.  It should be corrected, or one might find
themselves frustrated.

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 23:51, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> Jussi Ekholm <ekhowl@goa-head.org> writes:
> 
> > J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) <dm@zensunni.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 21:31:13 -0000, Kisteleki Róbert wrote:
> > >> Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded
> > >> the base-passwd package. The root password seems to be "upgraded"
> > >> also, since one of the two machines doesn't allow su-ing to root
> > >> any more; regular users can log in normally.
> > > 
> > > Try logging in on a tty/console. A new PAM has been introduced in
> > > unstable recently as well; it may well still have a few rough edges
> > > which could affect 'su'.
> > 
> > I'm running roughly 90% testing and 10% unstable system, and the
> > base-passwd which got upgraded yesterday, works just fine here. It
> > added one new group, though, which I'm concerned of because I don't
> > know what this group is. It's called 'sasl' -- what uses it?
> 
> >From /usr/share/doc/base-passwd/changelog.gz
> 
> base-passwd (3.4.2) unstable; urgency=low
> 
>   * Add new sasl group used to regulate access to the sasl secrets
>   * Drop prerm
>   * No longer make /usr/doc symlinks
> 
>  -- Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@debian.org>  Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:35:30 +0200
> 
> Install apt-listchanges and you can get to see these kind of things
> before you upgrade and/or mailed to an address of your choice.
> 
> -- 
> Olaf Meeuwissen                            EPSON KOWA Corporation, ECS
> GnuPG key: 6BE37D90/AB6B 0D1F 99E7 1BF5 EB97  976A 16C7 F27D 6BE3 7D90
> LPIC-2               -- I hack, therefore I am --                 BOFH
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 




Reply to: