Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:06:59 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Dominic Mitchell <dom@semantico.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM (was: Re: MAIL set by whom?) Message-ID: <20010122110659.F70055@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <20010122094647.A7853@semantico.com>; from dom@semantico.com on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:46:47AM %2B0000 References: <3A6A50F3.307C9E06@nisser.com> <20010121103324.A297@frolic.no-support.loc> <3A6B042E.659C716D@nisser.com> <20010122094647.A7853@semantico.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:46:47AM +0000, Dominic Mitchell wrote: > Would it be a good idea to start using /etc/pam.d ala RedHat, instead of > the monolithic /etc/pam.conf? > > As far as I can see the support is already there, it's just not being > used due to the presence of the /etc/pam.conf. > > This would make installing PAM entries far easier for the ports. Seconded. I don't see any reason *not* to do it this way. OTOH, ports are not supposed to install in /etc, so the best way would be to extend pam to support /usr/local/etc/pam.d *and* /etc/pam.d (if it doesn't already do this). No, I'm not sending patches, sorry :) --Stijn -- Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010122110659.F70055>