From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 5 02:14:59 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1EB16A4CE; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 02:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com (ms-smtp-03-qfe0.socal.rr.com [66.75.162.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E152243FCB; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 02:14:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from blue.mcneil.com (cpe-66-75-176-109.socal.rr.com [66.75.176.109])hB5AEomB008229; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 02:14:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.75.176.109] (mcneil.com [66.75.176.109]) by blue.mcneil.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB5AEnJ4064012; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 02:14:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) From: Sean McNeil To: DougB@FreeBSD.org, gnome@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Sean McNeil Consulting Message-Id: <1070619288.63838.20.camel@blue.mcneil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:14:49 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-NIET-Metrics: blue.mcneil.com 1080; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Subject: additional thoughts on xscreensaver X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:14:59 -0000 Hi all, I was just thinking.... there are two port entries for xscreensaver. I feel Doug is perfectly right about the PAM issue when it comes to the standard port. Yet, for xscreensaver-gnome I think it makes more sense to compile it with PAM. The biggest reason being consistency. Since gdm is compiled with PAM, the password mechanism for the screensaver should work in the same manner. It would be frustrating to users of Gnome to log in without a problem, lock the screen, then not be able to log back in. This could happen and not just because of LDAP. As far as testing goes, I have the following configuration: FreeBSD-CURRENT up-to-date ports PAM configuration with pam_ldap and nss_ldap It works well with an account defined within LDAP or in /etc/passwd. I am, however, not able to unlock the screen with the root password as described in the man page. Is this deprecated behavior? If not, I'll investigate further. Cheers, Sean