Re: PAM support in Samba
On Wed, Oct 22, 1997 at 01:06:29PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> There might have been a discussion about PAM before, but I didnt see it,
> so sorry if I bring up an old subject...
>
> So why do we have PAM support in samba? I believe it is the only package
> which uses PAM authentication... So are we going the PAM way? In that case
> we should use PAM for all programs that need authentication... I didnt see
> anything about this in the policy. If we dont want PAM, then why should we
> need PAM in samba at all? If we want PAM, then I believe it should be
> declared in the policy...
I suggested PAM support as a goal for 2.0; as such it has gone into Brian C.
White's "Upcoming Debian Releases" document (
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9709/msg00042.html
is there a permanent web location??).
I like the idea of PAM a lot: moving all authentication-related code into
libraries. It makes it easier for a system administrator to implement an
authentication policy. Providing PAM support can be a major operation, and I
admit I haven't looked into the technical issues yet. Given that Red Hat has
been PAMified for some time now, I think that PAM is mature enough. If we
move to PAM, this might be an opportunity for integrating PAM support
upstream (I don't have the impression that Red Hat worked on this).
> Perhaps this thread should move to debian-policy?
Maybe. I'd like to see if there is some concencus on PAM; if there is, it
should go into the policy.
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl | not be a better one than the one the blocks
| live in but it'll be a sight more vivid.
| - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: