Previously J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > Speaking of which, how do you feel about PAM? I was wondering when someone would mention PAM :) PAM is a good thing, since it makes it very easy to change the authentication policy for the entire system in a single place and it adds a lot of flexibility. The main problem with the implementation of PAM is that is has to be done for a lot of packages from multiple maintainers. You have already made the first important step by making working, stable PAM packages. So now we have to pamify the other packages. The easiest way to do this is is to start by making a `PAMifcation kit': a simple text with guidelines to add PAM support and some standard code. That will make it easy for both maintainers and volunteers to patch existing packages. When that is ready a group of volunteers to create patches for packages if the maintainer prefers that or does not respons within a certain timelimit will assure we can implement PAMify most (if not all) packages before the potato release. Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgpVr6ICXdGWi.pgp
Description: PGP signature