Re: /etc/security produces ci / co "unexpected end of file"

[Mike Bowie <mbowie%buzmo.com@localhost>]

On 10/2/09 4:39 PM, matthew sporleder wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Mike Bowie <mbowie%buzmo.com@localhost> wrote:
>> On 10/2/09 3:38 PM, matthew sporleder wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Mike Bowie <mbowie%buzmo.com@localhost> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> ci: /var/backups/work/device.current,v:1429: unexpected end of file
>>>> ci aborted
>>>> co: /var/backups/work/device.current,v:1429: unexpected end of file
>>>> co aborted
>>>> ci: /var/backups/work/device.current,v:1429: unexpected end of file
>>>> ci aborted
>>>> co: /var/backups/work/device.current,v:1429: unexpected end of file
>>>> co aborted
>>>>
>>>> [2] http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-cobalt/2004/06/29/0001.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does it go away with if put:
>>> check_devices=NO
>>> in /etc/security.conf?
>>
>> It most certainly does.
>>
>> That strikes me as suppressing the issue more-so than resolving it...
>> and unless I'm mistaken, I then miss out on a good number of file-system
>> checks, no?
>>
> 
> Definitely.  :)
> 
> Sadly, I don't really see where /etc/security is doing any rcs
> commands, but here's what I would try:
> mv /var/backup/work/device.current* /var/tmp/ (this includes the ,v file)
> then let /etc/security creaete a brand new one and ci it to the right place.
> 
> You can also try some manual co's on your backed-up device.current,v

Thank you most sincerely for humoring me; for the problem is in fact
between the keyboard and the seat.  Apparently when I vi'd
/var/backup/work/device.current* previously to inspect the files, I
failed to :n to the ,v and so didn't actually check the file in
question.  Looking at it now, /var/backup/work/device.current,v does in
fact die in a fire at the line reported.

A quick:
mv /var/backup/work/device.current* /var/tmp/ && sh /etc/security && sh
/etc/security
... now shows that there is in fact, no error.  (Only a fool who stared
at it for a couple of months.)

Thanks again for the reply... your suggestion pushed me beyond my
internal threshold for stupid. ;-)

Cheers,

Mike.