Date: 23 Feb 2002 01:25:38 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Chris Costello <chris@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OpenPAM Message-ID: <xzp7kp53uyl.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202221543431.74100-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202221543431.74100-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> writes: > My question was "why?" > Not a statement that it was a bad idea or anything.. Right, I'm sorry I reacted negatively to your email. To answer your first question, the changes required to make Linux-PAM modules work with OpenPAM are minimal. They're mostly #include fixups (Linux-PAM headers pull in a lot of system headers, so some modules are missing includes). As for FreeBSD's PAM modules, most of the changes are stuff that's actually FreeBSD-specific, because we've added ad-hoc functions for things that OpenPAM does "natively", and my integration patches remove some of those ad-hoc functions. 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?xzp7kp53uyl.fsf>