Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:37:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:00:36PM -0800, Chris Jantzen wrote:
> > 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".
> Deletion of conffiles is preserved.
Well, is my face red. :-)
To veer back to main branch of discussion: If pam supports true
includes, it would be marvelous to have some kind of policy and package
structure taking advantage of that. I always enjoyed pam_stack in the
world of Red Hat, but coming over to Debian I was told it was very
broken, so I adjusted. :-)
chris jantzen kb7rnl =-> __O
Insert witty comment here. _`\<,_
http://www.maybe.net/ (*)/ (*)