Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Arto Jantunen <vi...@debian.org> writes: > >> PAM was my first guess as well, but I don't have any concrete knowledge >> about the sequence changes involved here (my understanding of PAM is >> fairly superficial, and also outdated). Are you confident enough about >> your theory to reassign this bug to PAM? > > No... it's possible that the session module is not getting invoked for > some reason. I think the key missing bit of information is what's > different about your system, since I don't think this is happening to > everyone. I think there must be something about your system that's > tickling the bug, and that would probably point to the problem package. > > Do you have any unusual or non-default PAM configuration? Also, how are > your supplemental groups managed; is it all in /etc/group, or are you > using LDAP or some other system?
I'm fairly certain that NIS is the differentiating factor here, it's quite rare these days. I see the problem on all three NIS using machines I have upgraded to squeeze and on none of the ones that don't have NIS. The PAM configuration itself is at defaults, as is the sshd config. -- Arto Jantunen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
