Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:08:59 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Chris Costello <chris@FreeBSD.ORG>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OpenPAM Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202221507430.74100-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <3C76CE8D.1660973B@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > 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? > > Yes. Pam is just an API. > > > can a linux_pam module be used (once compiled for FreeBSD) on a FreeBSD > > system? > > Yes. > > > how much work is it to convert the source for a Linux Pam module to a > > BSD-PAM module? > > Same as now; most of the time, it's just a recompile, unless > there are unexpected Linux-isms in the code to hamper it being > portable between UNIX systems. > > > The deliberatly gave the Linux-poam stuff a BSD copyright originally > > to allow us to use it.. WHy does it need to be rewritten? > > I'll let DES answer that one... though have you looked at the > Linux-PAM code? It was derived from Mr Tso's PAM code (unveiled at USENIX a few years ago.) He was adamant it was Dual Licensed. (at that time at least). > > -- Terry > 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.4.21.0202221507430.74100-100000>