Bug 1009181
Summary: | anaconda will not install nss-pam-ldapd even if auth --enable-ldap is specified | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | og <olaf.greis> |
Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | Vratislav Podzimek <vpodzime> |
Status: | CLOSED CANTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 19 | CC: | anaconda-maint-list, dshea, g.kaviyarasu, jonathan, mkolman, olaf.greis, sbueno, vanmeeuwen+fedora, vpodzime |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i386 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-06-24 07:04:54 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
og
2013-09-17 22:22:09 UTC
(In reply to og from comment #0) > Description of problem: > anaconda will not install nss-pam-ldapd as dependency even if auth > --enable-ldap is specified in kickstart config > > How reproducible: > create a kickstart file with > auth .... --enable-ldap .... -someldapoptions > # more options for valid kickstart > %packages > @...-desktop-environment > some > packages > but > not_nss-pam-ldapd > %end > > Actual results: > nss-pam-ldapd is not installed. therefore ldap auth will not work after > first boot. It has to installed manually via yum and authconfig has to be > rerun. > > Expected results: > have nss-pam-ldapd installed automatically as a dependency introduced by the > parameters of auth. ldap auth is working. To do that, anaconda would need a way to find out which packages should be installed as a dependency introduced by the parameters of auth. Do you know about any way to do so? Otherwise we just forward the parameters to auth and we would really like avoid inspecting them and doing some magic on top of them. Sorry I don't know how this works internally. I'm a user, not a developer. (In reply to og from comment #2) > Sorry I don't know how this works internally. I'm a user, not a developer. Fair point, but I'm afraid we cannot fix this issue in any "generic" way that would work with other options/commands as well. It looks more like a documentation issue to me. |