Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:42:41 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Dominic Mitchell <dom@semantico.com> Cc: Roelof Osinga <roelof@nisser.com>, Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAM (was: Re: MAIL set by whom?) Message-ID: <3A6C7111.80E5663F@newsguy.com> 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
Dominic Mitchell wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 04:45:50PM +0100, Roelof Osinga wrote: > > Grand gesture. Laudable even. Yeah, that PAM sure seems to've > > become popular. The Courier IMAP port also insisted upon its > > installation. Insisted in that fiddling with the makefile only > > resulted in failure to configure. But that's a whole different > > story. > > 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. Ports shouldn't touch /etc. Does the existance of /etc/pam.conf precludes /usr/local/etc/pam.d from working? -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org capo@a.crazy.bsdconspiracy.net "There is no spoon." -- Kiki 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?3A6C7111.80E5663F>