From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 4 17:26:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gnome@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287FC16A402 for ; Thu, 4 May 2006 17:26:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from mail.mcneil.com (mcneil.com [24.199.45.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3B043D48 for ; Thu, 4 May 2006 17:26:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F329F27AB; Thu, 4 May 2006 10:26:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mcneil.com Received: from mail.mcneil.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (triton.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ptLHoqygyMso; Thu, 4 May 2006 10:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcneil.com (mcneil.com [24.199.45.54]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008B3F2619; Thu, 4 May 2006 10:26:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean McNeil To: Joe Marcus Clarke In-Reply-To: <20060504125121.T81868@creme-brulee.marcuscom.com> References: <1146757556.28376.3.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <20060504125121.T81868@creme-brulee.marcuscom.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 10:26:46 -0700 Message-Id: <1146763606.98779.5.camel@triton.mcneil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gnome-screensaver configures with --disable-pam X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 17:26:48 -0000 On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 12:52 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2006, Sean McNeil wrote: > > > > > Why??? > > > > I remember this was discussed about xscreensaver at one time and was > > fixed. Is there any reason at all why --disable-pam has been set in the > > configure for x11/gnome-screensaver? I took this offensive setting out > > and I can once more lock my screen. Naturally, with it in I get errors > > and it fails to lock because I happen to use PAM with LDAP to get > > usernames and passwords. Not good. > > It was basically adapted from xscreensaver-gnome to give equivalent > default behavior. The first few releases of g-s didn't do well with PAM > anyway. I haven't tested it recently, but if you know it works, please > provide a patch, and the PAM support will be re-done. That's the easy part. Just take the --disable-pam out. 1) The default is to auto-detect PAM support so if it isn't available, it does the right thing. 2) If an administrator doesn't want to support PAM with gnome-screensaver, simply do not have an /etc/pam.d/gnome-screensaver. 3) With --disable-pam in, locking is broken on configurations like mine and it is dangerous not to lock the screen when configured to do so. --- Makefile.orig Thu May 4 10:20:50 2006 +++ Makefile Thu May 4 10:21:01 2006 @@ -23,8 +23,7 @@ USE_GMAKE= yes GNU_CONFIGURE= yes USE_GNOME= gnomeprefix gnomehack intlhack libgnomeui gnomemenus -CONFIGURE_ARGS= --disable-pam \ - --with-gdm-config=${X11BASE}/etc/gdm/custom.conf \ +CONFIGURE_ARGS= --with-gdm-config=${X11BASE}/etc/gdm/custom.conf \ --with-xscreensaverdir=${XSCREENSAVER_DIR} \ --with-xscreensaverhackdir=${X11BASE}/bin/xscreensaver-hacks CONFIGURE_ENV= CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/include -I${X11BASE}/include" \