On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 16:26 +0200, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 31 March 2005 15:57, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if pam_console is giving you a hard time on *BSD, then just use.mask it :P
> > -mike
> As I said is not a problem of bsd in this case. Just look at pam ebuild, is a 
> mess!

Speak for youself - I think the ebuild is quite decent condition
thinking about what it does.

>  it builds a static glib to be able to build pam_console, there's 
> conditional of all kinds...
> Moving out pam_console (and the rest of optional pam modules, also) into 
> different ebuilds will make user ables to install what they need without 
> having a bloated ebuild with conditionals for everything.
> 

Yeah sure, now its just another ebuild to test and update with each
version bump - if I wanted to be in the KDE herd, I would have joined
it.

> This also allow to install/remove pam_console without need to recompile the 
> entire pam.
> 

 # rm -f /lib/security/pam_console.so

You need to rebuild gcc to have gcj - I do not see the issue.

> I still would like to see some problems deriving from the pam/pam_console 
> splitting.

My fist down your yap.  Seriously, it needs to die (like
pam_console_devfs*), and any user still wanting it, should get what he
asked for.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa