Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:11:49 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: OPIE breakage: backout & patch for review Message-ID: <200302161911.h1GJBnaX034785@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:54:26 PST." <20030216185426.GB52253@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David O'Brien" writes: > > With a suitable "HEADS UP!" and appropriate changes to the documentation, > > might is be possible to move _all_ policy control into PAM, instead of > > having it split between OPIE and PAM? > > Nope. What about opieized, but not pamized applications? > OPIE needs to act on FreeBSD like it does on every other Unix platform. > It really does seem like DES is chaning existing practice. Changing existing practice is what I'm asking about. If there is a particular policy on a FreeBSD box, then OPIE should really be falling in with that, no? In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation is a bug in its own right. If they are ports, they need to fall in with FreeBSD/sysadmin policy. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH 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?200302161911.h1GJBnaX034785>