Bug 1290 – pam-0.64-4 is missing documentation

Bug 1290 - pam-0.64-4 is missing documentation

Summary:	pam-0.64-4 is missing documentation

Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	pam (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	5.2
Hardware:	All Linux

Priority	low Severity low
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Cristian Gafton
QA Contact:
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Duplicates:	1289 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	1999-02-23 04:27 EST by ijwestcott
Modified:	2008-05-01 11:37 EDT (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	1999-04-09 18:14:27 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description ijwestcott 1999-02-23 04:27:08 EST

pam-0.64-3, which came with Red Hat 5.2, used to have short
guides in the directories under /usr/doc/pam-0.64/. In
January, pam-0.64-4 was released to correct a minor possible
bug, but it looks like the html/ps/txt guides (for how to
write modules, what modules are available, how to configure
the modules) were accidently left out: only the index.html
(with invalid links) is left. This information really isn't
in any other package, and there is no PAM HOWTO, so I assume
this was an oversight.

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 1999-02-23 10:39:59 EST

*** Bug 1289 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

All of the docementation meant to come with the pam package
is missing.

Comment 2 Göran Uddeborg 1999-03-30 03:54:59 EST

As further info:  when building the package from the source RPM all
documentation comes include as expected.  Maybe something broke during
the build, like missing sgmltools on the build host?

Comment 3 Michael K. Johnson 1999-04-09 18:14:59 EDT

Yes, you have diagnosed the problem correctly.

Our current pam package in our latest build tree will not build
in this case, so this problem will not happen again.

We'll put a new pam package on our errata page; it is building now.

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