Date: 21 Jan 2002 01:45:37 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Step5, pam_opie OPIE auth fix for review Message-ID: <xzpadv81qha.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20020121003547.GA28007@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20020121001822.GA27831@nagual.pp.ru> <200201210029.g0L0TTt35104@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20020121003547.GA28007@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> writes: > What you dislike in that way? This method fully described in pam(8). The fact that it is described in pam(8) does not mean we like it. We also have a man page for gets(3), but you know what BDE will say if you try to use it. > I see no differences using short forms like > > "sufficient" > > or its full long analog like > > "[default=ignore sucess=done new_authtok_reqd=done]" > > short forms are only aliases. No. The "[...]" form is a Linux-PAM invention, and is tightly linked to Linux-PAM implementation details. It does not exist in other PAM implementations. I aim to move *away* from dependence on Linux-PAM, not *towards* it. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpadv81qha.fsf>