From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Feb 22 15:14:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7482337B402; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:14:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 6C5535341; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:14:50 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Julian Elischer Cc: Chris Costello , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OpenPAM References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 23 Feb 2002 00:14:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer writes: > The advantages to using linux_pam is obviously that we get to piggyback > off them for new kinds of pam modules etc. Is this still the case? can a > linux_pam module be used (once compiled for FreeBSD) on a FreeBSD system? > how much work is it to convert the source for a Linux Pam module to a > BSD-PAM module? Did you look at the diffs? > The deliberatly gave the Linux-poam stuff a BSD copyright originally > to allow us to use it.. WHy does it need to be rewritten? Because it sucks rocks, it's a nightmare to debug, it has a very slow release cycle, and maintainer response to bug reports is haphazard. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message