Re: Bug#1068017: util-linux: please ship liblastlog2 packages

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 11:48 PM Chris Hofstaedtler <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> * Iker Pedrosa <[email protected]> [240403 09:43]:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I have some questions regarding your proposal:
> >
> >    - What is the difference between liblastlog2 and libpam-lastlog2
> >    binaries? Upstream util-linux only provides one binary (lastlog2) so
> this
> >    confuses me.
>
> util-linux upstream provides three binary objects to be built:
> - liblastlog2.so
> - pam_lastlog2.so
> - lastlog2 (program)
>
> Debian's PAM policy says to put PAM modules into their own package,
> thus libpam-lastlog2. liblastlog2.so would go into the
>
liblastlog2(-0) package. The lastlog2 program either into its own
> lastlog2 package, or elsewhere.
>

Please, let's call this pam_lastlog2 and not libpam-lastlog2. AFAIK, all
pam modules start with the prefix pam_*.

Everything else sounds good.


>
> >    - Did you consider using a systemd service to upgrade from lastlog to
> >    lastlog2 data?
>
> No, I did not consider this, as I wasn't aware of any
> implementations for this. Does u-l upstream ship such a service?
>

Yes,
https://github.com/util-linux/util-linux/blob/master/misc-utils/lastlog2-import.service.in


>
> > This way when the distribution is updated to the next
> >    version you can also remove the lastlog binary and all its
> dependencies. In
> >    addition, you can use "--disable-lastlog" in shadow to stop building
> this
> >    binary.
>
> Chris
>
>

-- 

Iker Pedrosa

Senior Software Engineer, Identity Management team

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

Txapela (gorria) buruan eta ibili munduan

(Red) hat on his head and walk the world

Basque proverb
<https://www.redhat.com>

_______________________________________________
Pkg-shadow-devel mailing list
Pkg-shadow-devel-wVTzQnVv9Y8Rm1jG9FmulZdwIE86Xf0q@public.gmane.org
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-shadow-devel