This (sudoers.d) looks completely sensible to me (and indeed, I saw the same issue and realized the danger of overwriting the sudoers file accidentally removing access to the host). Perhaps time to start to get ready to re-roll the image with accrued fixes. (this one, Libc6, etc). if anyone needs access to the AWS account for resource access in order to test, please let me know.
James PS: If you do overwrite /etc/sudoers, then you can recover it by stopping the host (not terminate), present the root volume to another host, mounting it, edit the sudoers file, unmount, unpresent, and then start the host again. But sudoers/d may be neater. ;) James Bromberger | Solution Architect | Amazon Web Services E: jame...@amazon.com -----Original Message----- From: Anders Ingemann [mailto:and...@ingemann.de] Sent: Monday, 7 January 2013 8:18 AM To: Chris Fordham Cc: Charles Plessy; 697...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#697490: cloud: 697490: use sudoers.d On 6 January 2013 22:55, Chris Fordham <chris.ford...@rightscale.com> wrote: > This is a good example of why template-based configuration is better > used rather than regex/stream based editing. well. d'uh! :-P I did not know about sudoers.d when I wrote it, otherwise I can assure you that we wouldn't be talking about this to begin with ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/camcogxhnnz_mgmdu_upwmrfqrcpmfdbu7r8b5eqjaxvumho...@mail.gmail.com
