Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
From: Sebastian Rittau <srittau@jroger.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:29:34 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20030316182934.GA13151@jroger.in-berlin.de>
Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20030315160717.GB32202@shadowglade.net>
References: <[🔎] 20030313234559.GA21175@jroger.in-berlin.de> <[🔎] 20030314025657.GB8000@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net> <[🔎] 20030315160717.GB32202@shadowglade.net>

On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:07:17AM -0500, Matthew P. McGuire wrote:

> On researching this further this morning I found a Debian-PAM-MiniPolicy 
> in the documentation for libpam0g. I believe it would be appropriate to 
> use this as a base for drawing up any further Debian-PAM policy.

Yes, I've just found this, too. I knew that something like this existed,
but I thought it was in the Debian policy. Thatswhy I hadn't found it.
I've just mailed Sam Hartman (the Debian PAM maintainer) and hope that
he will join the discussion.

Since I started this discussion, I volunteer to write a patch for the
PAM mini-policy, though.

 - Sebastian

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>
- Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
  - From: "Matthew P. McGuire" <gray@shadowglade.net>

Prev by Date: Re: RFC: Upstream author renamed his software
Next by Date: Re: Orphaning some packages
Previous by thread: Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
Next by thread: Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread