Re: Is it too late to try and generalize PAM for woody?
On 26 Jun 2001, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Martin <email@example.com> writes:
> Daniel> I've been following this thread and I have a small
> Daniel> question as to why we'd need to overload/change the
> Daniel> semantics of the /etc/pam.d/other file.
> Daniel> Why not merely build a new pam module, called something
> Daniel> like pam_chain, that does nothing but invoke other pam
> Daniel> modules as specified in its configuration? To get an
> Daniel> example of what I mean:
> You aren't bringing up new ideas. That is the pam_inherit option.
> As I said I'm not interested in having the technical discussion now;
> for the moment I'm just discussing whether solving this problem is a
> good idea.
It seems to me that whether it's a good idea depends on the specifics of how
it's implemented. :) As I said, if the groundwork for this can be laid in
woody in a non-intrusive manner, I think it should be done; but whether it can
be done non-intrusively may depend on the technicalities of how it's done.