Re: ppp & pam (was: Re: ppp's ip-{up,down} and possible utilization of 'run-parts')
James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk> writes:
> o By linking ppp with pam you are dragging libpam0g, libpam0g-util and
> libpwdb0g into base.
>
> This is fine, *as long as* it's been discussed and agreed first, I
> don't like 3 shared library packages being silently dragged into
> base. If we're going to do PAM for 2.0, then this will have to be
> done anyway. But have really got the time to PAM-ify critical
> applications like the shadow suite and have them working and debugged
> and have 2.0 released before the next millennium?
Yes, I agree that we shouldn't place any new blocks in front of 2.0 at
this late stage in the game (especially as they would be on my own
head !).
Since the pam support in PPP might be iffy anyway, it would be best to
have a separate package for a pamified ppp binary. If it's stable, we
we can replace the normal ppp binary with that after 2.0.
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: