Request for a sponsor and a review of: pam_abl

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:46:49 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:

> Am Di, den 12.07.2005 schrieb Oliver Falk um 10:00:
> 
> > > http://www.uni-x.org/pam_abl-0.2.2-20050110.src.rpm
> > > http://www.uni-x.org/pam_abl.spec
> 
> > Tried this, but get the following, if I enable pam_abl in system-auth:
> > 
> > Jul 12 09:53:24 moon sshd[1944]: PAM unable to resolve symbol: 
> > pam_sm_open_session
> > Jul 12 09:53:24 moon sshd[1944]: PAM unable to resolve symbol: 
> > pam_sm_close_session
> > 
> > :-/
> 
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> on which system does it fail? I am running pam_abl on CentOS4 and it
> builds and runs properly.
> 
> That leads me directly to the question: is it necessary to test software
> builds on FC4 with it's latest gcc? 

"Yes, of course!" to the latter question.

> > Specfile:
> > * Release should be 1%{?dist}
> 
> Ok, so the dist tag seems to be mandatory, other than the wiki says.

No, it isn't.
 
> > * You should not make
> > * rpmlint complains:
> > W: pam_abl non-standard-group Base
> 
> Group: System Environment/Base
> would be correct?

Yes.
 
> > E: pam_abl hardcoded-library-path in /lib/security/$ISA/pam_abl.so
> 
> Where is that error triggered from?

rpmlint examining your PAM file.

On x86_64, PAM modules are stored in /lib64/security/..., so it is
a mistake to hardcode the path. Just put "pam_abl.so" there.