From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 16 11:18:53 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F1E37B401 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:18:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDF143FAF for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:18:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1GJImja082317; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:18:48 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with UUCP id h1GJImVe082316; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:18:48 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimreaper.grondar.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1GJBnaX034785; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:11:49 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200302161911.h1GJBnaX034785@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" , Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: OPIE breakage: backout & patch for review In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:54:26 PST." <20030216185426.GB52253@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:11:49 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "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