Bug 103448 - Bad: configuration file not loaded properly
Summary: Bad: configuration file not loaded properly
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: netatalk
Version: 3
Hardware: i686
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Vas Dias
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2003-08-30 18:12 UTC by Johan Landin
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:10 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-06-16 22:44:52 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Johan Landin 2003-08-30 18:12:11 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.8 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.20-20.7smp i686)

Description of problem:
BAD: It is not possible to select  the desired user authentication method by
setting the desired value(s) in the configuraion file /etc/atalk/afpd.conf.
Regardless of what was specified the same default values were always loaded. 
(uams_clrtxt.so and uams_dhx.so)

GOOD: By editing the netatalk startup file /etc/init.d/atalk it was possible to
control which UAMs to be loaded.  To the line starting afpd (beginning with
'daemon afpd...' ) was added an argument specifiying which configuration file to
use:  '-F /etc/atalk/afpd.conf'

After restarting netatalk using the edited startup script specification of UAMs
worked as expected.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
netatalk-1.5.2-3

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Start netatalk and observe the output in /var/log/messages.
2. Select other values for the uamlist in /etc/atalk/afpd.conf
3. Restart netatalk and observe the output in /var/log/messages regarding  which
UAMs being loaded.
    

Actual Results:  No difference between step 1. and 2.

Expected Results:  The expected result is to se new values for the UAMs loaded.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Charlie Bennett 2004-09-23 18:10:35 UTC
Moved to Fedora Core for investigation against 1.6.4.

Comment 2 Jason Vas Dias 2005-06-16 22:44:52 UTC
This bug has been fixed with the latest netatalk-2.0.3-1 release,
available from: http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/netatalk and in
tomorrow's rawhide.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.