[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wuftpd-questions
Subject:    Re: Problems with ftpd on Linux 7.1
From:       Saul <jaffe () sflovers ! rutgers ! edu>
Date:       2001-09-26 16:51:28
[Download RAW message or body]


>    From: "Alex Yu" <yua@wu-ftpd.org>
>    Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 08:19:37 -0400
>    Importance: Normal
> 
>    > I believe that the folks at RedHat screwed things up.  I just 
>    > latest version which they designate as 2.6.1-16.  ls and 
> 
>    lol, bero won't put a wu-ftpd package out if it doesn't work.  

What makes you believe that?  I've found other packages on the cd that don't
work out of the box.  The whole point of RedHat Linux and the rpm's is that
you *don't* have to spend hours configuring things if you want a basic
system.  You can install the software out of the box and be running, no
problem and only need to configure things if you have special needs.

>    There must be something wrong with your configuration.

Nonsense. If you have a running machine where everything works for Version A,
doesn't work for Version A+1 and there were no changes to the software that
would require a configuration change, then it *MUST* be a bug in the software,
not the configuration.

That's what we have here.  Earlier versions of ftpd worked fine. The latest
doesn't.  There's no claim that there needs to be a change in the
configuration for the latest version.  Therefore, there *MUST* be a bug in the
new version. Q.E.D.

What is that so hard to understand?

>     Like what Greg said,
>    you may want to check /var/log/messages and /etc/pam.d/ftp.  Red Hat's
>    wu-ftpd package uses pam for auth.  You may also want to check ftpaccess
>    for misconfiguration.

A) All of those things have been checked.  They were fine for earlier
versions, and are not fine for the latest version.  Therefore, there must be
something wrong with the latest version.

B) I've tried the software without /etc/pam.d/ftp and without the ftpaccess
files, with no change in results.  

C) See comments above about the configuration.

>    > I downloaded their src rpm for that, and it certainly appears 
>    > non-released version of 2.7.0 ftp.  Sigh.
> 
>    lol, what's the difference?  2.7.0 has many fixes that 2.6.1 doesn't
>    have.  

The difference is that 2.7.0 is a beta, unreleased version according to its
sources.  I don't want beta software on what will be a production machine.
Period.  

Why is that so hard to understand?

-- 
Saul Jaffe
jaffe@sflovers.rutgers.edu

"In the absence of a decent time machine, fiction remains the most sturdy
vehicle for visiting other eras" -- Tom Nolan in "The Wall Street Journal"


    

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]