| 2010-08-25 23:43:42 |
Tom Hobson |
description |
Binary package hint: smb4k
When enabling superuser options in SMB4k (so unprivileged users can mount shares) the smb4k_sudowriter modifies the file permissions on /etc/sudoers from 440 to 640 breaking sudo system wide.
I am running Xubuntu 10.10 Alpha 3
lsb_release -rd
Description: Ubuntu maverick (development branch)
Release: 10.10
apt-cache policy smb4k
smb4k:
Installed: 0.10.7-1
Candidate: 0.10.7-1
Version table:
*** 0.10.7-1 0
500 http://au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/universe i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
Additional:
booting into recovery and using "chmod 440 /etc/sudoers" usually fixes the damage but sometimes breaks gdm. Attempting to mount shares once said fix has been implemented results in smb4k throwing the following error: "mount error: could not resolve address for $HOSTNAME: no address associated with hostname" where $HOSTNAME is the computer you are trying to connect to. This occurs with both the workgroup view, search and manual entry. Should I fork this as a separate bug? |
Binary package hint: smb4k
When enabling superuser options in SMB4k (so unprivileged users can mount shares) smb4k_sudowriter modifies the file permissions on /etc/sudoers from 440 to 640 breaking sudo system wide.
I am running Xubuntu 10.10 Alpha 3
lsb_release -rd
Description: Ubuntu maverick (development branch)
Release: 10.10
apt-cache policy smb4k
smb4k:
Installed: 0.10.7-1
Candidate: 0.10.7-1
Version table:
*** 0.10.7-1 0
500 http://au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/universe i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
Additional:
booting into recovery and using "chmod 440 /etc/sudoers" usually fixes the damage but sometimes breaks gdm. Attempting to mount shares once said fix has been implemented results in smb4k throwing the following error: "mount error: could not resolve address for $HOSTNAME: no address associated with hostname" where $HOSTNAME is the computer you are trying to connect to. This occurs with both the workgroup view, search and manual entry. Should I fork this as a separate bug?
|
|
