From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 26 16:52:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB0537B402 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:52:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool0083.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.83] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16UdYF-0003ui-00; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:52:07 -0800 Message-ID: <3C534F33.2755EED9@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:52:03 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Mitchell Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM, setusercontext, kdm and ports/32273 References: <20020126224243.A72777@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Scott Mitchell wrote: > However, this got me thinking -- is the right solution here to have a PAM > module that does the setusercontext(), so programs that already know about > PAM will just work, without needing to know about setusercontext() as well? > I can see that causing problems with programs (login, xdm, etc.) that > already understand both mechanisms, but they could always not use this > hypothetical pam_setusercontext module, right? > > So, is this a worthwhile thing to have? I'm happy to either write the PAM > module or fix kdm, but I'd rather not waste my time learning about PAM > internals if people think this would be a pointless exercise. No. THis is a bad idea. Fix KDM instead. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message