Re: PAM and libpwdb

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Erik Troan wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andrew Morgan wrote:
> 
> > I don't believe libpwdb should be in any spec. From my perspective and
> > that of others that have contributed to PAM, libpwdb was a fine idea
> > back in the dark ages but now NSS is available (glibc), the case for
> > libpwdb is much deminished. I would like to see NSS better documented
> > though. ;)
> 
> Red Hat agrees with this, fwiw (and the pwdb author (gafton) is probably
> the strongest advocate of not using it).
> 

So, in other words, PAM and NSS does provide all necessary
functionality?

	-hpa