Comment 51 for bug 6841

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:04:02 +0200
From: Helge Hafting <email address hidden>
To: Thomas Hood <email address hidden>
CC: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Javier_Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?=
 <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#256680: #256680

Thomas Hood wrote:

>I found a duplicate of this bug: #158065. It says there:
>
>
>
>>Digging around I managed to get rid of it by changing the order in
>>nsswitch.conf to "passwd: files ldap" (same for shadow).
>>
>>
>
>Maybe this will help in your case?
>
>

It helps in my case, thanks!
Nothing needs to be looked
up in ldap because I have most info in the traditional files.
I don't think this solves the problem for anyone who actually
relies on ldap though. In extreme cases even root could be
authenticated through ldap exclusively.

I still wonder wether run-parts really needs to invoke PAM.
What purpose does it serve - particularly when there
isn't a single script to run?

>In my opinion, ifupdown -a should refrain from bringing down lo.
>I can't think of any reason why lo should be deconfigured.
>
>
I agree. I believe people who need to shutdown a loopback
interface are few - and they _can_ put a "ifconfig lo down" in
a post-down.d script if they really need that sort of thing.

Helge Hafting