Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:44:38 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Chris Costello <chris@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OpenPAM Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202221543431.74100-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpbseh3y8l.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Feb 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> 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. That's fair enough then My question was "why?" Not a statement that it was a bad idea or anything.. > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0202221543431.74100-100000>