Re: ppp's ip-{up,down} and possible utilization of 'run-parts'
Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> I thought I'd call the PAM-free ppp package ppp-base, like perl-base.
> I'm still not sure about the best way to do this though. It looks like the
> only thing that needs to be different is the pppd binary, so:
>
> Should I make ppp contain only the pppd with PAM binary, and have it depend on
> ppp-base (which would contain most of the rest of ppp), and use alternates on
> pppd ?
That sounds pretty complicated with little gains. What's the
disadvantage of having PAM in the normal pppd. More complicated to
setup? Much bigger binary?
Guy
--
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: