Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:41:40 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OPIE breakage: backout & patch for review Message-ID: <200302162141.h1GLfeaX035772@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:28:35 PST." <20030216212835.GA74550@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David O'Brien" writes: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 07:11:49PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > 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. > > I'll state it again, because many don't seem to listen -- many of us > consider OPIEized, but not PAMized 3rd party ports a Good Thing. PAM is > nothing but a PITA, OPIE offers useful real functionality. David, This is not a failure to understand; it is a disagreement. I am asserting that PAM is the way FreeBSD is doing its authentication policy-setting. I am asserting that as a result of this applications need to comply, somehow. Right now, this is not hard. In future, it may get harder. DES has committed some PAM policy tweaks that make this possible. Bear in mind that PAM may leave you behind at some point; it is in the focus. 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?200302162141.h1GLfeaX035772>