<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "http://bugs.gentoo.org/bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="2.22.7"
          urlbase="http://bugs.gentoo.org/"
          maintainer="bugzilla@gentoo.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>215055</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2008-03-27 13:59 0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>openoffice-2.4.0 has an incomplete pam check</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2008-03-27 14:08:46 0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>Gentoo Linux</product>
          <component>Applications</component>
          <version>unspecified</version>
          <rep_platform>All</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Linux</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter>seemant_g2@kulleen.org</reporter>
          <assigned_to>bug-wranglers@gentoo.org</assigned_to>
          <cc>suka@gentoo.org</cc>

      

      
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>seemant_g2@kulleen.org</who>
            <bug_when>2008-03-27 13:59:23 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Hi Suka,

The openoffice-2.4.0 ebuild causes and eerror if shadow is built without &quot;pam&quot; in USE.  However, this is only relevant if the &quot;pam&quot; USE flag is enabled for openoffice.  I think that the built_with_use check for pam/shadow should be enclosed in an &quot;if use pam...fi&quot; clause.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>suka@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2008-03-27 14:08:46 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Ooops, what a stupid oversight on my part. Anyway, should be fixed now. Thanks for reporting, Seemant!</thetext>
          </long_desc>
      
    </bug>

</bugzilla>