Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:41:51 +0300 From: "Sergey Matveychuk" <sem@ciam.ru> To: "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" <des@ofug.org> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OpenPAM and OSVERSION Message-ID: <000c01c2d112$8c469e50$0a2da8c0@sem> References: <3E47213D.2060501@ciam.ru> <xzpznp4o3qp.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no><002301c2d0f7$46df3d10$0799763e@semhome><xzpr8agnzke.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no><001101c2d103$7f29ad20$0a2da8c0@sem> <xzp8ywonuxn.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Because most PAM problems in ports are bugs in the ports themselves, > which Linux-PAM just happens to tolerate and OpenPAM doesn't. In > other words, it should be possible to find a solution to the problem > which works equally well for Linux-PAM and OpenPAM, without the need > to know which is which. And as a last resort, you can make OpenPAM- > specific code conditional on the _OPENPAM preprocessor symbol. No difference for port's user how source is change. Either a patch will apply for 5.0 only when port build or general pach where PAM version detects with preprocessor directives. Result code will be the same. I think it's a style question. What the community opinion? > > What fix will be a right one? > > I can't tell you unless you show me what you believe needs fixing. What a right way escape from PAM_CONV_AGAIN/PAM_TRY_AGAIN and relate code from LINUX_PAM? ---- Sem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000c01c2d112$8c469e50$0a2da8c0>