Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>