Re: Another shadow question
Christian Hudon writes:
> 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
That's not so easy. These packages will be replaced by the shadow package.
It's not they have to be aware of it, but that the shadow package contains
its own versions of these programs, that are quite different. And a program
like passwd has to have more (and additional) features for shadow.
> > 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?'
I wonder about this for a while, too.
Michael Meskes | _____ ________ __ ____
| / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___ __________
firstname.lastname@example.org | \__ \/ /_ / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
| ___/ / __/ /__ __/\__, / __/ / (__ )
Use Debian Linux! | /____/_/ /_/ /____/\___/_/ /____/