Why are we blaming the 'victim' instead of enabling a solution?
A comment in the Description area that runs along these lines would have made the entire question a non-starter:
If /etc/motd is a non-symlinked file, regeneration will not occur.
A comment in the Description area that runs along these lines would have made the entire question a non-starter:
If /etc/motd is a non-symlinked file, regeneration will not occur.
"On Debian GNU/Linux this file is a symbolic link pointing to /var/run. The contents of this file are regenerated upon every system boot based on the contents of /etc/motd.tail."
It should probably read:
"On Debian GNU/Linux this file is usually a symbolic link pointing to /var/run. The contents of the file in /var/run are regenerated upon every system boot based on the contents of /etc/motd.tail."
To make it clear that the programs that generate the contents target the file in /var/run, and do not operate directly on /etc/motd.