Re: DPLs: PAM?
On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 02:50:34PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" 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?
I'll have to join Wichert in saying it's a good thing for the same
reasons he likes 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 really like Wichert's thoughts on this, having had a chance to read
them before replying. Most of us who aren't quite coders could probably
implement PAM in packages using the suggested "PAMification kit", IMO a
good thing. Most of us non-coders can't build makefiles and sendmail.cf
files that play chess or anything, but for example I know enough C to
make small hacks and alterations to C programs and even larger ones if I
have some idea what I need to change and what it's supposed to do
(this is the method I'm using to learn C BTW, I when I want to make some
change in a program I figure out generally what the result is supposed to
be, then I make my changes to what I think the results should be based on
my knowledge of C syntax and the functions I'm using. Of course, it
never compiles the first time, however I can tinker with it till it does
compile. => Time between first attempt to actually compiles is getting
shorter with practice, though with all but the simple changes I usually
have more tinkering before it actually WORKS.. When you have the time
(and backups of the code) this seems to be a good way to learn for those
who are interested in learning hands-on..)
"Shall we play a game?" -- WOPR