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

Re: I'm sure you get your share of I HATE PAM messages.

On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Michael K. Johnson wrote:

> redhat-devel is the place for talking about Red Hat development issues.
> pam-list just happens to be hosted by Red Hat because we have an interest
> in furthering its development.

I'm very sorry - this was the source of my misunderstanding. I thought
this was a redhat-related list. I did not wish to have directed my
comments anywhere else.

> I'm sorry; I didn't see that part; I probably quit reading after I got
> tired of the rant.  I did start reading it with the idea of trying to
> figure out what was wrong and then helping you out, but there wasn't
> a lot of useful information to use in order to help you, and I got the
> idea after the first page or so of rant that there was only rant left
> in the message.  :-)

Sorry about that... I suppose I was trying to be informative and funny at
the same time.  :/

> In order to be helpful, I've got to know more.  It *sounds* to me like
> you have upgraded a system piecemeal; I have no idea what versions of
> important packages you are using.  Please consider posting what version
> of RHL you are using, what versions of pam and pwdb, what version of
> libc if you have upgraded it separately, etc.  Then we might have a
> chance of helping.  As it is, all I can say is "well, I can't seem
> to reproduce that" which doesn't help you in the least.

Actually, your questions have led me to figure out the entire problem.
Thank you! 

In case you're curious anyway:

I started with a RedHat 4.0 install - a very old one. I updated pam,
pamconfig, and pwdb to the most recently available version in the
current/RedHat/RPMS directory on sunsite. Right now, that's 0.57-2,
0.51-2, and 0.54-3 respectively. 

I did not, however, elect to update the libc from 5.3.12-17 (it had
apparently already been updated) to 5.3.12-18. Which I've just done. And
the ulckpwdf/lckpwdf error messages disappeared. Tinkering with libc, are

Dependency, deschmendency. Who needs them? We can all just guess, right?

Unfortunately, that didn't solve the problem about ftpd not working. Heh
heh heh... No configuration file in pam.d for it. Nothing in pam.conf
about it. So I copy the example about configuring ftpd off of the pam
documentation file, since it happens to be conviently there already. That
didn't work either. I convert the three lines in question into a pam.d
file named "ftpd" (just like the service-name in the example). Still no
luck. I notice that the example also expects all the pam libs in
/usr/lib/security, and redhat puts them all in /lib/security. No biggie, I
fix that. No luck there either.

But by now I'm on to them. I go to back to the ftp site and pull down
wu-ftpd-2.4.2b12-6. I only had b11. And now it starts working. 

So, uh, now I just sit around and hope I notice what versions
of what else Pam breaks, since you didn't even feel like MAKING A REAL

On my way on to the next crisis, I notice that the rpm installation of the
new wu-ftp created a file called "ftp" (_not_ "ftpd") in /etc/pam.d.  How
thoughtful. They arbitrarily changed the service-name. On peeking in, out
of curiousity, I notice that the file is substantially different from the
example in the pam documentation as well. I am not at all surprised.

I get it. If my pam.d directory gets hosed, I'm just supposed to 
cheerfully reinstal every rpm I've ever used? 

Well, that's it for today. I sincerely hope this gets archived in some
search engine somewhere so the next poor schmuck who types "pam lckpwdf" 
into Altavista will have better luck than I did. 

I'll still write that manual section if someone would like. Is there a
maintainer I can speak with? 

David Wood

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