Re: debian 2.0
James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk> wrote:
> Oh, foo. Integration of pam was dropped as a release goal of 2.0
> because it is quite simply not tenable if you want to release hamm
> before 1999. You can not simply recompile core applications like
> shadow and net{base,std} with pam and "hope they work", especially not
> a month+ into freeze.
I didn't realize that pam was this unstable. [As in: it's been around
for a while, and I didn't realize the decision had been made this
recently.]
Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:
> > Not good. [Sounds like a significant bug, too.]
> The non-use of pam is not a "significant bug" and I have no idea what
> makes you think it is.
It's a bug in debian's pam support, because it is a lack of pam
support.
Seems like it would be viable to create a netbase-pam, setstd-pam,
login-pam, etc. and put them somewhere (experimental, slink/extra, ...).
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: