David Eisenstein wrote:
Adam Gibson wrote:
Adam Gibson wrote:
One thing I noticed after the latest yum update of sendmail from the
previous update is that alternatives is broken for /etc/pam.d/smtp for
the sendmail package. <<snip>>
So basically it boils down to alternatives with the newer sendmail
updates do not do anything with /etc/pam.d/smtp anymore(It is part of
the packages itself and not a symlink). The problem I had is that the
old symlink was in the way when sendmail was updated.
My take, judging from previous comments you've posted, Adam, is that you run
the Red Hat 9 version of sendmail?
Correct. I realized that I did not include an OS version after
submitting the second email and didn't want to send a third reply. Good
guess :).
...
To fix this bug in RH9's sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy (similarly in
FC1's), we elected to revert the alternatives behavior to what it had
been in sendmail-8.12.8. The various scenarios might be, then:
c) User is using 8.12.8, upgraded to 8.12.11-4.24.1. Same problems as
(b). User either fixes this by hand (by making a symlink /etc/pam.d/
smtp -> smtp.sendmail &c) or fixes this using the "alternatives
--config mta" command, as suggested by Marc in
<http://tinyurl.com/jdwko>. If user does either of these two things, a
later upgrade to sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.3 will break /etc/pam.d/smtp,
causing it to point to a non-existent /etc/pam.d/smtp.sendmail, and
create /etc/pam.d/smtp.rpmnew. This one, I think, would have been your
scenario, Adam. You have provided a good workaround for this.
That is precisely what I saw. Thanks.
Hope this helps explain the situation, Adam. It was a mess, and we did the
best we knew to fix it. Sorry for the trouble it has caused.
The problems were relatively minor. I was just posting the information
mainly in case others experienced the same issue so they would know of a
fix. I am surprised that you were able to decipher the 2 previous
emails... It was very confusing even trying to explain the symlink
because the symlink in question points to a symlink which points to a
missing file :).
Thanks for the reply. I really didn't expect a reply that explained
things as well as you did.
--
fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
