Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:05:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I understand that Linux-PAM supports a straightforward $include syntax
> that could be used in place of pam_stack, to much better effect. The
> place to start is by patching libpam0g to provide suitable config
> snippets that can be included by applications.
I feel it would be valuable, if the pam directory contains only the rule
"others" and the exceptions (for example "passwd"). That way a policy change
affects less files and a good overview of the current exceptions is given.
I dont know how many packages install a pam file for a reason, I think most
can live with a default stack, no?
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Wendelinusstrasse39.76646Bruchsal.de --
( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD eckes@irc +497257930613 BE5-RIPE
(O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Reply to: