[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another shadow question

On Tue, 7 May 1996, David Frey wrote:

> The reason why I haven't released the Shadow-Package are two-fold:
> 1) Main reason: The shadow package breaks our current packaging scheme badly.
>    There are far too many conflicting binaries which are replaced by
>    shadow (passwd, login was in miscutils (where is it now?), 
>            su is in shellutils, chfn, newgrp (in shellutils), ...)
>    The best variant would probably be to put these programs into
>    small packages, and use the Conflicts:/Replaces: mechanism.

Ugh. It'd look like it'd be kinda messy. Wouldn't it be better to simply
change all packages to be shadow-aware (i.e. they use shadow if it's
there)? This is assuming we don't want to move to shadow passwords as a

> 2) There seems to be a reluctance against incorporating shadow; that's at
>    least my impression. I don't have any idea where this comes from.

Huh... A reluctance against incorporating shadow? Is there?
Can I ask 'why?'


Reply to: