Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:30:45AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:58:50PM -0800, Chris Jantzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:29:40AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > administrator is a step backwards, not forwards. Currently the
> > > administrator can intervene if need be, albeit with some awkwardness,
> >
> > I don't think it's particularly awkward or difficult to just dpkg-divert
> > the files after installation, myself.
>
> dpkg-diverting conffiles is the way to hit scary code paths that
> apparently don't work properly, so I certainly don't recommend that
> approach. Just edit the conffiles directly.
>
> (The awkwardness I meant was what Sebastian referred to: you have to
> edit a number of files to make a policy change, not all of which may
> necessarily even be installed yet.)
Well, if that's not legal (though it's certainly worked fine thusfar)
then it is awkward. Because I want to delete those files to force
fallback to "other". And if on every upgrade I have to go patrol the
/etc/pam.d/ to see if any files magickally reappeared....
--
chris jantzen kb7rnl =-> __O
Insert witty comment here. _`\<,_
http://www.maybe.net/ (*)/ (*)
Reply to: