Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:32:35 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM modules Message-ID: <4E7A57F3.20109@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86boukbk8s.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <86boukbk8s.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/16/2011 08:05, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > We currently have a number of PAM modules in ports, and while some of > them are specific to certain third-party software, many aren't. I > believe we would benefit from importing at least some of these into > base. My question is: which ones? For the sake of having the opposing viewpoint represented, I'm opposed to importing more of this stuff into the base. Given that it works just fine as it is, the benefits of importing it would have to overwhelmingly compensate for the negatives of having to keep them up to date in the base. Taking ldap as an example, the subset of our users who need this functionality are already able to get it from the ports tree, where it is easier to keep up to date across multiple FreeBSD versions. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E7A57F3.20109>