Re: Question about PAM (sorta)
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:39:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:03:49AM -0700, Chris Jantzen wrote:
> > So, I've read in the archives that pam_stack is considered suboptimal
> > and that the preferred way is to delete policy files and have a
> > reasonable default policy. What I want to know, is how do I protect
> > these files from being reinstated when an upgrade comes along? Can I use
> > dpkg-divert to divert the files away and leave nothing in their place?
>
> Files in /etc/pam.d currently appear to be dpkg-handled conffiles
> (listed in 'dpkg -s <package>'), which means you don't have to do
> anything; they're automatically protected from being clobbered by
> upgrades. More generally, Debian policy states that local changes to any
> file in /etc must be preserved on upgrade.
>
> Don't try to dpkg-divert conffiles. One of the dpkg maintainers said a
> while back that that doesn't work.
>
Ah. Just tested this. I did not know that. conffiles not only preserves
your right to have different configuration files, but your right to have
none at all. :-)
--
chris jantzen kb7rnl =-> __O
Insert witty comment here. _`\<,_
http://www.maybe.net/ (*)/ (*)
Reply to: