Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:20:58 +0200 From: Christian Brueffer <chris@unixpages.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Subject: Re: pam.conf(5) and pam(8) Message-ID: <20050609182058.GC2620@unixpages.org> In-Reply-To: <867jh3zcfk.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <20050608084229.GH41050@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050608152417.GB836@galgenberg.net> <20050609141756.GA41050@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050609145520.GB2620@unixpages.org> <867jh3zcfk.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ADZbWkCsHQ7r3kzd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:07:27PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Christian Brueffer <chris@unixpages.org> writes: > > NetBSD has both pam.conf(5) and pam(8) that fit with OpenPAM FreeBSD > > uses (NetBSD recently imported OpenPAM as well). I'll import these > > in the next couple of days. >=20 > Allow me to raise a few objections. >=20 > First, the reason why we don't have a pam(8) is that we have a rather > comprehensive article about PAM in the doc tree, and I couldn't make > up my mind about how much of it to include in pam(8) and how much to > leave out. My feeling now is that pam(8) should probably just > reference the article and provide a quick overview of our PAM modules > (with references to their individual man pages). >=20 That's what the NetBSD manpage mostly does. Short description of the functionality and the account, auth, password and session facilities. > The reason why we don't have a pam.conf(5) is slightly more complex. > Part of it is that the information that belongs there is already > present in different places in different forms (/etc/pam.d/README for > instance). Another part is that it is *hard* to describe the meanings > of the control flags both accurately and succintly. NetBSD didn't get > it quite right. In addition, their man page is under a four-clause > BSD license, which makes me leery of including it in OpenPAM. >=20 Ok. The 'already documented' argument is valid, but I think a manpage is much more accessible and visible than e.g. the README (actually I never even noticed it's there).=20 > My own attempt is in Perforce: >=20 > http://perforce.freebsd.org/fileViewer.cgi?FSPC=3D//depot/projects/openpa= m/doc/man/pam.conf.5&REV=3D2 >=20 Looks good. No idea on what we agree on, but the pam(8) and pam.conf(5) Xrefs that lead to nowhere have to be fixed in some way before 6.0-RELEASE. - Chris --=20 Christian Brueffer chris@unixpages.org brueffer@FreeBSD.org GPG Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D --ADZbWkCsHQ7r3kzd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCqIiKbHYXjKDtmC0RAnMCAJwL94CdEYfrQEoStPaFAynTvzUo2gCgsDQ4 8R8BMHK2zrOFQyCUBagloyk= =dE1+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ADZbWkCsHQ7r3kzd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050609182058.GC2620>