Hi guys,

i wanted to fix FS#16802 which is about newusers and chpasswd utilities
from shadow. Even the fix is available in bugtracker, i'm not quite sure
if we have this bug because something got changed upstream.


I've found out that we are using a custom default pam module for about
all except one and that in shadow source they provide in etc/pam.d some
configuration.


I don't know the history of the arch package and why we are using custom
configs and i've found that any other distribution out there doesn't
have this bug that we have. So my worries are that we kinda package
shadow very badly.


So anyone know why we are using that custom config? Anyone know how to
fix shadow? Personally i don't know a thing about it.


--
Ionut

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> i wanted to fix FS#16802 which is about newusers and chpasswd utilities from
> shadow. Even the fix is available in bugtracker, i'm not quite sure if we
> have this bug because something got changed upstream.
>
> I've found out that we are using a custom default pam module for about all
> except one and that in shadow source they provide in etc/pam.d some
> configuration.
>
> I don't know the history of the arch package and why we are using custom
> configs and i've found that any other distribution out there doesn't have
> this bug that we have. So my worries are that we kinda package shadow very
> badly.
>
> So anyone know why we are using that custom config? Anyone know how to fix
> shadow? Personally i don't know a thing about it.

I don't think there's any specific reason beyond "that's how we did it
in the past". What are the pros and cons to getting rid of this custom
module?

Am 21.05.2010 17:37, schrieb Ionut Biru:
> So anyone know why we are using that custom config? Anyone know how to
> fix shadow? Personally i don't know a thing about it.

We've had some of those cases recently. Most of the time, upstream
didn't provide configuration files in the past, or provided broken
configuration files which have since then been fixed.

What we should do in these cases is evaluate if switching to the
upstream configuration leads to a reasonable default configuration for
Arch, and a smooth upgrade path.

I didn't look at shadow in particular, but my guess is that their
defaults would be safe to use.