Re: Release Plans (19990513)
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@efis.ucr.ac.cr> writes:
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 02:28:16PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > PAM:
> > Ben Collins sponsored full pamification as a release goal. The main
> > packages that need work are the shadow suite, and xdm.
> /me blinks...
> has nis (the package) been PAMified? I positively hate PAM because it's an
> all or nothing "solution". After helping some people set nis up on a couple
> of RH boxes, we all agreed RH sucks big time. They PAMified what they
> considered important, and their nis package wasn't on that list. End
> result: you have lots of PAMified stuff, but you can't use most of PAM's
> features.
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here.
I use NIS and PAM all the time on RedHat (and Debian - although half
of our stuff is not yet pamified). What exactly has to be pamified in
the nis package? (In RH 6.0, setting up an NIS client is as easy as
typing the domain name into a text widget during the install.)
In fact, on Debian I use my own pamified versions of rsh because the
non-pam versions _don't_ work with NIS. (They don't grok netgroups in
hosts.equiv.)
Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu
Reply to: