Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #210588
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? |
| Date | 2019-07-02 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yfmuu-6It-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <yf8hP-6zb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <yf8KR-6J1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <yfajD-7LA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <yfb61-8hT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | Unorganized |
On 2019-07-01, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > > Debian's main selling point is that a Stable can *always* be upgraded > in place to the next version, so that kind of incompatibility does not Then it will fail to live up to the marketing for the brave 600 or so Debian users (according to Popularity Contest) regularly employing ecryptfs-utils: The ecryptfs-utils package is not part of buster due to an unfixed serious bug (#765854). At the time of writing this paragraph, there was no clear advice for users of eCryptfs, except not to upgrade. And yet the serious unfixed bug doesn't appear to even belong to ecryptfs-utils per se, but rather to systemd: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/8598 systemd-user doesn't properly close its PAM session #8598 The systemd --user instance that is started when a user first logs in (if pam_systemd is enabled) starts a subprocess "(sd-pam)" that opens a PAM session for the user, using the "systemd-user" service name. See setup_pam() in src/core/execute.c. However, this PAM session is not properly closed. Which results, in my understanding of the thing, in a Private directory not being unmounted at user logout (ecryptfs-umount-private believing one session is still remaining) and "bug" #765854.
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
How Buster release may affect Unstable? Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2019-07-01 19:30 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-07-01 20:00 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2019-07-01 21:40 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-07-01 22:10 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-01 22:30 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-01 22:50 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-07-01 23:20 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-01 23:30 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-02 10:40 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-02 19:50 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 23:30 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-02 09:20 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2019-07-02 11:40 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2019-07-02 18:30 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Francisco M Neto <fmneto@fmneto.com.br> - 2019-07-05 16:00 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2019-07-08 09:50 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-02 00:00 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-02 09:30 +0200
Re: How Buster release may affect Unstable? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-02 09:40 +0200
csiph-web