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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>