On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 00:11 +0200, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:

> > > openpam will pdepend on
> > > freebsd-pam-modules to provide both in a simple way.
> > Why?  What good will they do on linux?  Just stick them in bsd profile.
> Mainly, openpam is shipped without any kind of module. If someone would like 
> to replace Linux-PAM with openpam on a Linux system (it's possible), I'd much 
> prefer to provide it with everything he needs. Linux-PAM builds its own 
> modules, openpam just provide pam implementation and needs other packages to 
> provide the basic modules. FreeBSD's modules should work on Linux and this 
> would make possible the switch between Linux-PAM and openpam.
> 

I was more talking about the virtual/pam-modules (or whatever).  Having
a a PDEPEND is just fine.

> > Like I said before, only real reason why I will biatch about this one,
> > is its called 'pam' on all linux distro's, and it will be another lost
> > history (ok, so the workaround is a schlepp) case without real cause.
> Actually it's called libpam usually :)
> Mainly, calling it pam is usual on linux-centric systems, but as Gentoo is not 
> only Linux, and "it's all about choice", having it called as it's named, 
> IMHO, is a way to state clearly what it is.
> Just take a look to telnet-bsd and netkit-telnetd. On Debian there's 
> netkit-telnet which is called just telnet.
> Anyway this is only "cosmetic" and for what I "need" or better I feel is 
> needed, this is something which can be omissed.
> 

Like I said - its more just me than anything else.

> > Ugh, no - just more crud that somebody will have to clean out later.
> > Like I said, get pam-0.78 and issues fixed, bumped to stable on all
> > linux archs, and we can scourge the tree.
> That's a decision up to you as pam mantainers :)
> Anyway I'm available to add the temporary fixes, trace them, and remove them 
> when all is done, if needed.
> 

Id rather just do it cleanly.

> > > I'll work anyway on a pam_stack hack for openpam, also if I'm not sure
> > > if, when and how I'll be able to make it work... also I don't like too
> > > much messing with security stuff :/
> > Sorry, you are on your own here.
> I know and I'll try to do everything I can, but if in the mean time it could 
> be used the other method should be enough until there's a way to "support" 
> pam_stack on openpam.
> 

Well, the include should work, be the cleanest and less up and down way
(you really do not want to coordinate a big change across the tree in
more than one direction more than once - you usually end up burning
yourself) - I'll work through the pam bugs for 0.78, and see if we can
get it pushed to stable.


Thanks,

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