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?'