Re: Seeking comments on PAM logging change
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:02, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "Oliver" == Oliver Kurth <okurth@gmx.net> writes:
>
> Oliver> Although I agree with you on the problem, I think this
> Oliver> should be really handled by upstream, otherwise you make
> Oliver> it incompatible.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Debian PAM is basically forked from the
> upstream already. Upstream does not act on patches in a reasonable
> time line; upstream does not respond to mail questions; upstream
> releases versions of PAM that cannot work with applications like cron
> or ssh
Would you be interested in taking over PAM development? If so then I will be
interested in working with you when I get a quiet time in my work (probably
about June I can spend some serious coding time on PAM).
I think that if you lead a PAM fork based on 0.77 + Debian patches + Red Hat
patches then Red Hat will adopt it. I've talked about taking over PAM myself
and no-one seems to have a great opposition to the idea, it's just that I
lack time.
> If you think this sucks, you're right. If you think you can do a
> better job of getting upstream to listen than I, be my guest.
I think that forking PAM is the right thing to do.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: