From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 23 21: 0:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from citusc17.usc.edu (citusc17.usc.edu [128.125.38.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073BD37B400 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:00:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kris@localhost) by citusc17.usc.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f0O53q726684; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:03:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:03:52 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAM (was: Re: MAIL set by whom?) Message-ID: <20010123210352.A26571@citusc17.usc.edu> References: <3A6A50F3.307C9E06@nisser.com> <20010121103324.A297@frolic.no-support.loc> <3A6B042E.659C716D@nisser.com> <20010122094647.A7853@semantico.com> <3A6C7111.80E5663F@newsguy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A6C7111.80E5663F@newsguy.com>; from dcs@newsguy.com on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:42:41AM +0900 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:42:41AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Dominic Mitchell wrote: > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > Would it be a good idea to start using /etc/pam.d ala RedHat, instead of > > the monolithic /etc/pam.conf? > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > This would make installing PAM entries far easier for the ports. >=20 > Ports shouldn't touch /etc. >=20 > Does the existance of /etc/pam.conf precludes /usr/local/etc/pam.d from > working? Yes, at present (well, it doesn't know about /usr/local/etc/pam.d): from pam(8): ticate users. This dynamic configuration is set by the contents of the single PAM configuration file /etc/pam.conf. Alternatively, the configuration can be set by individual configuration files located in the /etc/pam.d/ directory. The presence of this directory will cause PAM to ignore /etc/pam.conf. FWIW, I agree about the need for the change. Kris --=20 NOTE: To fetch an updated copy of my GPG key which has not expired, finger kris@FreeBSD.org --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6bmI4Wry0BWjoQKURAg5MAJ41zcDHDYQzlBt3F6FUlkbIGGW9gwCgnlQn LR97leWRFtXpPEWf9+/oZV0= =cota -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message