Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:14:24 +0000 From: Chris Stenton <jacs@gnome.co.uk> To: Matt Behrens <matt@zigg.com> Cc: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>, Chris Stenton <jacs@gnome.co.uk>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: old version of PAM in 3.0-stable stopping Samba working? Message-ID: <199901271414.OAA00492@hawk.gnome.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:23:24 EST." <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901261521310.16416-100000@megaweapon.zigg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well John you are the only person I know who has got it working straight out of the box on a 3.0 machine! If the security level is share and the shared directories have public access then all is fine. Any security control that needs password checking and you get the module errors as stated. > Odd. I wonder if PAM changed substantially since 8 January. Both > of my tries were with a 19980112-SNAP system and a 3.0-STABLE > system, cvsupped on 20 January.(Or it might have been the 21st.) > :) > > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, John Fieber wrote: > > : On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Matt Behrens wrote: > > : > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, John Fieber wrote: > > : > : Hm... I've been using samba 2.0 from the ports collection > : > : without any difficulty. I didn't add *any* samba service entries > : > : in /etc/pam.conf so I expect samba has a fallback method in the > : > : event of no appropriately configured PAM modules. Its "PAM mode" > : > : must require more than just an auth module... > > : > Unless the port has been updated again in the past few days, I'm > : > not sure why you're so lucky. :) > > : Samba port compiled January 18 with no local tweaks. The system > : is from a January 8 make world from 3.0-current (at the time) > : sources. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901271414.OAA00492>