Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#30368 - [shadow] Missing manpage for porttime in shadow 4.1.5-4.

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Alex Pilon (alp) - Wednesday, 20 June 2012, 01:07 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Saturday, 17 November 2012, 15:14 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:

Package version 4.1.5-4 is missing the [man page for porttime](http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-shadow/upstream/tags/4.1.5.1/man/porttime.5.xml?view=log).

Steps to reproduce:

Download version 4.1.5-4 of the package. Try to `man 5 porttime`.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Saturday, 17 November 2012, 15:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  shadow-4.1.5.1-2
Comment by Alex Pilon (alp) - Wednesday, 20 June 2012, 01:46 GMT
Sorry. Ought to have been a feature request.
Comment by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Saturday, 23 June 2012, 17:41 GMT
What are you expecting to read /etc/porttime? The build system implies that porttime is only installed as a manpage if pam support is not included in shadow. We build shadow with PAM, and pam_time.so seems to me to be a far more useful replacement.
Comment by Alex Pilon (alp) - Saturday, 23 June 2012, 18:19 GMT
I'll admit I didn't thoroughly investigate why it wasn't built in.

Hmm. I was perusing the contents of the shadow package. I thought I ought to use logoutd for for enforcing restrictions a certain system the day I made the request. Logoutd is present in the package and it references porttime yet the man page for logoutd isn't as much a manual as it is a statement that it enforces the rules in porttime. No information is given on what actually must go in porttime.

Ought logoutd to still be in shadow then?

Now that you mention it, something that doesn't require a deamon sounds better; I'm the last person you ought to ask about PAM.
Comment by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Saturday, 23 June 2012, 18:32 GMT
Removing logoutd sounds like a better option to me. What a horrifying piece of code.

Loading...