From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Feb 22 16:25:44 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 0D1AF37B404; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 1BC865341; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:25:39 +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 01:25:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 17 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: > 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