Re: PAM in 2.0? (was: PAM support in Samba)
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl wrote:
> This is a very valid point. Is it perhaps possible with the current PAM code
> to make a "dummy" PAM library (i.e. hardwired to use the standard
> authentication method in a straightforward fashion)? Then the non-x86
> architectures could compile from the same source, and their applications
> would become PAM-aware as soon as the trouble with the PAM library was
> fixed.
I've tried to do this kind of thing in the past when I first started
experimenting with the PAM libs on the Alpha with poor results.
Basically, I told it to use ONLY the standard UNIX authentication
practices and it couldn't even do that correctly.
No matter what, I think that once a working PAM package is released on the
Alpha (or other archs for that matter), it should require a reinstallation
of PAM and it's related config directory/files. IMO, having even a stub
that only does UNIX-type authentication but still comes with all of the
"parts" (conf files) could be misleading and may make the less-aware sys
admin think that they're using something that they're not. I would sooner
leave it out until it works rather than have someone get confused as to
whether it works correctly or not.
> > My personal feeling is that PAM should be a goal, but not a requirement
> > for 2.0 release.
>
> I agree. But it would be nice to get a move to PAM started now.
Yep, it sure would. I've posted a summary of this topic on debian-alpha
to see if someone wants to take PAM off of my shoulders (I'm wearing it
like an albatross right now) or at least get someone to debug it for me.
If I get a volunteer, we should be able to get PAM to work within a week
or two with good effort and debugging info. After that, the move to
libc6 should be easy for x86 folks too....
Chris
--
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: