Re: libpam, cracklib, and slink (was Re: Release-critical...)
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:34:45 -0500, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
> > Another Ack! I'd like to see cracklib support enabled in PAM. Can we
> > coordinate uploads here? I plan on a new upload of cracklib this weekend
> > which will close all existing bug reports.
>
> Perhaps the best way for cracklib support in PAM is to redefine PAM's
> packages into "base" and "non-base" ones. The "base" ones should be intended
> for future (potato) inclusion in the base system (for use by e.g. login);
> the "non-base" ones could require more libraries and auxiliary programs.
> Such a change in packaging could also be used as an opportunity to merge
> libpam0g and libpam0g-util (which have a mutual dependency).
I'm not sure I understand. Would the base and non-base conflict with
one another? Or does pam use loadable modules so the base can be
compiled without cracklib but later load the cracklib library when
non-base is installed?
> On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:31:57 -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Since no one else has spoken up, I will take over pam. I will also look
> > into cracklib support being put back in,
>
> You're misunderstanding things here: PAM so far has not supported cracklib.
> At one point, I was considering adding the support, and modified the build
> system to add -lcracklib for the pamutil .so's, but I never got around to
> really enabling the cracklib build.
I see. This makes cracklib's bugs less critical. Still, I plan on
uploading fixes this weekend.
--
Jean Pierre
Reply to: