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

Re: The current (not existing) PAM policy



On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 04:15:22PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> 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.

Sounds like something which merits a minor bug against xscreensaver.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpmu13l6Orja.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: