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

Re: DPLs: PAM?

On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 02:50:34PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 01:34:38 +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Please note that a DPL can't make something happen. What he can do is try
> > to focus people on issues and channel efforts.
> Speaking of which, how do you feel about PAM?

As a faithful PAM user I am all for it.

> Also, assume for a moment that you're in favour of PAMifying Debian during
> the potato release cycle. How would you try to accomplish this? (If it
> helps, consider another change that affects many packages, like the
> consistent keyboard behaviour we've had earlier).

I don't think implementing PAM would be as difficult as assuring it works
as advertised. It would only require recompiling those packages which can
make use of it (shadow utils, apache?, netatalk?, etc...). The rescue
disks could continue using non-PAM for space sake while the base system
would include just enough to support standard authentication (unix and
pwdb). Each one would place it's own file in /etc/ppp.d/ even if it
doesn't differ from the default. 

To be honest, with all the current OS's using PAM, I don't think we can
really not have PAM aware packages any longer.

-----    -- - -------- --------- ----  -------  -----  - - ---   --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov>                  Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc.                 bcollins@debian.org
------ -- ----- - - -------   ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation

Reply to: