[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian 2.0

Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:

> > Oh, foo. Integration of pam was dropped as a release goal of 2.0
> > because it is quite simply not tenable if you want to release hamm
> > before 1999. You can not simply recompile core applications like
> > shadow and net{base,std} with pam and "hope they work", especially
> > not a month+ into freeze.
> I didn't realize that pam was this unstable.

I never said it was unstable and it isn't.  But we haven't used it
before and I don't care how stable it is, we should not and will not
start recompiling core applications with a previously unused (*in
Debian*) library, one month into a freeze.  The decision to postpone
PAM integration till 2.1 was made a long time ago (see the list


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: