[Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#932458: Couldn't open /etc/securetty: No such file or directory

[Bálint Réczey]

Control: reassign -1 pam 1.3.1-5
Control: fixed -1 pam 1.4.0-1

Hi Chris,

Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha at debian.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. dec.
31., Cs, 0:56):
>
> Hey,
>
> * Bálint Réczey <balint at balintreczey.hu> [201230 23:53]:
> > Bálint Réczey <balint at balintreczey.hu> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. nov.
> > 7., Cs, 20:45):
> > > Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser at tarent.de> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. nov. 6.,
> > > Sze, 23:08):
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > when will something happen to not fill syslog with these messages
> > > > (unless deserved, such as if there is really something to warn about)?
> > > >
> > > > It’s not even stated yet whether the suggested change to the config
> > > > is safe to apply…
> > >
> > > I'm waiting for Steve's position on this. I believe the change to
> > > shadow was OK and all we need is removing the message in PAM.
> > > Since it is a trivial change I have not prepared a patch but I'm happy
> > > to if Steve prefers that.
> >
> > I asked upstream if they just want to silence the notice, but they
> > don't want to:
> > https://github.com/linux-pam/linux-pam/pull/158
> >
> > It leaves us with disabling it using configuration files. IMO the
> > proposed patch of removing nullok_secure is safe and the desired
> > solution.
> > However it is up to the maintainers, Steve, or Sam, to accept the
> > patch unless someone NMUs it.
> > I don't plan NMU-ing it myself, but since the general NMU rules apply
> > any DD can NMU it via DELAYED/10.
>
> Given not much has happened so far, maybe login should remove
> pam_securetty from its default PAM configuration instead?
>
> Thats nothing that needs to be coordinated with the PAM maintainers,
> AFAICT.

It seems this is fixed in pam.

Cheers,
Balint