[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 02:37:44PM +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.

Yes, Deletion of conffiles is preserved.

However installing new packages is a different story.

Another issue, you often get warnings like:

xscreensaver: warning: /etc/pam.d/xscreensaver does not exist.
xscreensaver: password authentication via PAM is unlikely to work.

which is stupid, because /etc/pam.d/other still works.
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Reply to: