Re: sudo no do

On Fri, May 08, 1998 at 02:32:41PM -0400, Shaleh wrote: > 1. hamm is not kernel dependent. I have used 2.0.29-34 on it. Thanks. > 2. make sure /etc/sudoers is ok (i.e. read sudo's man page) /etc/sudoers and /etc/hosts are unchanged from bo to hamm but the new "sudo" did not accept the "hostname

Re: sudo no do

1. hamm is not kernel dependant. I have used 2.0.29-34 on it. 2. make sure /etc/sudoers is ok (i.e. read sudo's man page) Jack Kern wrote: > > I upgraded from bo to hamm with little difficulty thanks to the > autoup.sh script and the testimonials herein as to the systems readiness > for users.

sudo no do

I upgraded from bo to hamm with little difficulty thanks to the autoup.sh script and the testimonials herein as to the systems readiness for users. Thanks again. Now, sudo won't let the sudoers do. I thought there was a file to delete somewhere when this happened but I don't know how to find it.