Re: Another shadow question
> > 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?'
Just look at reason #1. Switching from non-shadow to shadow is a
messy, logistical problem and I don't want my systems affected by it
unless and until the conversion can be done smoothly and painlessly.
David Engel Optical Data Systems, Inc.
email@example.com 1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081