Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:38:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kerberos 5 integration. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908171332380.4840-100000@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <199908171730.TAA41154@gratis.grondar.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Mark Murray wrote:
> I have a better idea; PAM-ify everything (that can be pammed). The rest
> of the stuff, I intend to do as you say.
Hummm...
That might be the way to go...
I'm not that familliar with PAM though.
This would be nice since it would let us rip all the cruft out of
everything and keep it in one place.
I'm pretty sure there is a kerberos5 pam module floating around
somewhere...
> > I'd also be interested in hearing reasons for or against putting the krb4
> > specific stuff (kinit, klist whatever) in /usr/krb4, and the krb5 bits in
> > /usr/krb5. This would simplify the task of leaving krb4 in the tree.
>
> Hmm. Methinks I might name the version-specific stuff k[45]${FOO}
> for FOO in init, list, destroy, etc. Telnetd and FTPD should be
> PAMmable, likewise the r.*d's. The userland ftp and telnets can
> have both (Isuspect), and the r-utils also.
Indeed.
What is holding back the work in the userland stuff then? Time?
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| winter@jurai.net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | ISO8802.5 4ever |
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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9908171332380.4840-100000>