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

Re: Is it too late to try and generalize PAM for woody?

On 26 Jun 2001, Sam Hartman wrote:

> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Martin <dtmartin24@home.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.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Reply to: