Re: PAM release status
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:44:26 -0400
Sam Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> David> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
> David> Sam Hartman <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> 1) PAM upgrades from woody force users to answer a dpkg
> >> conffile question.
> David> I don't mind. And the solution suggested seems error-prone
> David> and difficult for a user to easily understand.
> The behavior without the solution is difficult for users to
You're saying that *conffile* prompts are difficult for an admin to
understand? Are you sure these folk are using Debian?
Just wanted to inject a bit of realism :) See below.
> I think you should justify why you believe the proposed solution is
> error-prone; I don't really see that.
Okay, but before I do that, could you answer a few questions?
1) What is the default for Woody? MD5 passwords or non-MD5 passwords?
(And by default, I mean "when they're asked in the installation, which
is the default answer?)
2) When you say 'if the md5sum of /etc/pam.d/other matches ...', do you
mean 'for each configuration file in /etc/pam.d/, if it matches the
md5sum of ...'?
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F
Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F
Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption