17 Apr
2006
17 Apr
'06
10:38 p.m.
On 4/17/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 16:33 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
It appears that there has been a request in place for pam-0.99 for
some time now. The response from developer knowledgable folks is at
the end of this bug report:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87577
As for glibc, what is considered old and requires PAM to be patched?
Here's what is available on Gentoo:
mark@lightning ~ $ eix -I glibc
* sys-libs/glibc
Available versions: [P]2.2.5-r10 [P]2.3.2-r12
[P]2.3.3.20040420-r2 [P]2.3.4.20040619-r2 [P]2.3.4.20040808-r1
[P]2.3.4.20041102-r1 [P]2.3.4.20041102-r2 [P]2.3.4.20050125-r1 2.3.5
2.3.5-r1 2.3.5-r2 ~2.3.5-r3 *2.3.6 *2.3.6-r1 ~2.3.6-r2 ~2.3.6-r3
~2.4-r1 *2.4-r2
Installed: 2.3.5-r2
Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html
Description: GNU libc6 (also called glibc2) C library
Thanks,
Mark
P.S. - Yeah - If a binary only distro actually worked for the 50 extra
things I need to run then I'd consider it but I've been down that path
with Fedora and am quite hesitant to go there again. ;-) - MWK
Lee,
Is that what is specifically required or do we need PAM updated AND
some new ebuild for set_rlimits?
One or the other - doing both would be pointless.
Actually if your distros glibc is also old then you may need to patch
PAM rather than upgrade it.
Basically set_rtlimits should be considered a stopgap measure to make
non-root SCHED_FIFO work until your distro gets it together and updates
their PAM and glibc ;-)
See why I recommend just upgrading to a distro with a quicker release
cycle?
Lee