On Thursday 31 March 2005 17:01, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this is so that we (1) dont have to force -fPIC onto libglib.a and (2) we
> dont have to move libglib.so into /lib
I know why it's there.. is also stated clearly on ebuild and the changelog :)

> eh, you're going to have 'bloat' regardless of using 1 ebuild or 10, it's
> just a matter of which kind of bloat you want :p ... and generally i'm
> against splitting packages
Well.. seeing how other things are getting done with plugins, as pam modules 
are just plugins, for example xmms, bmp or gstreamer, the current trend is to 
split the ebuilds, instead of adding a lot of useflags.

Also, counting that pam_console and the other optional pam_* modules aren't 
part of original Linux-PAM makes me prefer having a different ebuild for them 
instead of a single largest one.

Well,  that's obviously IMHO. Having a virtual/pam and 
virtual/pam-base-modules is enough to make the openpam interoperability i'd 
like to have.

And just to make it clear, it's on Linux that I can't build pam_console, I 
haven't tried on fbsd, anyway.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/