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

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: