James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, foo. Integration of pam was dropped as a release goal of 2.0
> because it is quite simply not tenable if you want to release hamm
> before 1999. You can not simply recompile core applications like
> shadow and net{base,std} with pam and "hope they work", especially not
> a month+ into freeze.I didn't realize that pam was this unstable. [As in: it's been around for a while, and I didn't realize the decision had been made this recently.] Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Not good. [Sounds like a significant bug, too.] > The non-use of pam is not a "significant bug" and I have no idea what > makes you think it is. It's a bug in debian's pam support, because it is a lack of pam support. Seems like it would be viable to create a netbase-pam, setstd-pam, login-pam, etc. and put them somewhere (experimental, slink/extra, ...). -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
