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

Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:30:45AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:58:50PM -0800, Chris Jantzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:29:40AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > administrator is a step backwards, not forwards. Currently the
> > > administrator can intervene if need be, albeit with some awkwardness,
> > 
> > I don't think it's particularly awkward or difficult to just dpkg-divert
> > the files after installation, myself.
> dpkg-diverting conffiles is the way to hit scary code paths that
> apparently don't work properly, so I certainly don't recommend that
> approach. Just edit the conffiles directly.
> (The awkwardness I meant was what Sebastian referred to: you have to
> edit a number of files to make a policy change, not all of which may
> necessarily even be installed yet.)

Well, if that's not legal (though it's certainly worked fine thusfar)
then it is awkward. Because I want to delete those files to force
fallback to "other". And if on every upgrade I have to go patrol the
/etc/pam.d/ to see if any files magickally reappeared....

chris jantzen kb7rnl =->         __O
Insert witty comment here.     _`\<,_
http://www.maybe.net/         (*)/ (*)

Reply to: