Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
From: "Matthew P. McGuire" <gray@shadowglade.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:15:07 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] 20030315161507.GC32202@shadowglade.net>
Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20030314025657.GB8000@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net>
References: <[🔎] 20030313234559.GA21175@jroger.in-berlin.de> <[🔎] 20030314025657.GB8000@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net>

Fumble fingers me, forgot to send the attachment.

Sorry,

Matthew

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew P. McGuire <gray@shadowglade.net> 1024D/E21C0E88
CB82 7859 26B2 95E3 1328  5198 D57A D072 E21C 0E88
          When choice matters, choose Debian.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attachment: pam-revamp-0.0.3.tgz
Description: Binary data

Reply to:

References:
- The current (not existing) PAM policy
  - From: Sebastian Rittau <srittau@jroger.in-berlin.de>
- Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
  - From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>

Prev by Date: Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
Next by Date: Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
Previous by thread: Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
Next by thread: LSB 1.3, localization and Debian
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread