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

Re: PAM, Potato, Packages -- things that begine with 'P'

On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 06:20:53PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > No, wrong, false. If you are just using local files in /etc, then you are
> > ok, but the biggest reason for using PAM is having the ability to use
> > special authentication sources. Like radius, LDAP, and whatever else you
> > can think of. This means that there is no local authentication method for
> > non-pam apps.
> Hmm. So your fear is what, that people suddenly throw away their
> existing authentication scheme and hurt themselves? I think that if
> someone has set up some scheme to replace /etc/passwd, they should be
> qualified to handle any side effects own--it's not something that'll be
> done by default. I was talking about users who don't know pam from a
> hole in the wall, and I don't see how adding a bunch of extra packages
> will help them.

We are doing something different (different for Debian), we need to tread

> > The way it helps users is by not forcing them to use PAM, some people
> > don't want it. This may be overidden if we see that PAM is stable enough
> > to support as the standard (currently, being familiar with the source, I
> > don't have that confidence), but initially we need alternatives.
> If you really want them, go for it. But I'd advocate telnet-nopam, etc.
> Either we're going with pam or we're not. I don't have anything against
> providing optional non-pam packages, but they shouldn't be the defaults.

If that is how everyone feels, then it is fine with me, I'm only giving
my suggestions. I'll support the libraries as best I can no matter what
the general decision is.

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

Reply to: