Re: Website and library packages
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:27:33AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:16:10PM -0500, utsl@quic.net wrote:
> > * On the webpage, you mention problems with shadow:
> > I had the exact same problem with FreeBSD, and I see two choices. Either use
> > native passwd, adduser, etc. or get the shadow package to build a library (I
> > believe it can, but it's disabled), and recompile the Debian passwd and friends
> > with that. Then it's just a matter of getting PAM working.
>
> Ok, it turns out that this doesn't look too bad. In shadow-foo/lib we have
> a stack of code that performs the actual manipulation of the files, with
> all the utilities using that. There's code there for manipulation of
> dbm-style passwd files, so it shouldn't be too difficult to hack in code
> to support the NetBSD password databasesand then just call pw_mkdb
> afterwards. What we do lose is any ability to use the extended features
> that are offered over traditional password files, but we keep the ability
> to use PAM. Combining both sets of features into one set of tools looks
> like a little more work :)
Hmm. I was thinking more in terms of a libshadow. I seem to recall that there
used to be one, back with libc5, and I think that the shadow source package
still can make one. (If I remember right, it was disabled in the build on
Debian, because it's in glibc.) If so, you should be able to get passwd and
everything from Debian working by just adding -lshadow to the Makefiles. In
fact, I suspect you'd find that configure would pick it up automatically for a
lot of packages, because Solaris uses libshadow, and configure would know to
look for it.
That wouldn't be compatible with NetBSD passwd databases, though. But then,
rewriting update-passwd didn't seem like fun to me. I couldn't even get it to
compile on FreeBSD.
---Nathan
Reply to: