On 01/09/2012 06:41 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:28:48PM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> I do care about security, so I should be worried abou that? Anyway, I will >> remove PAM (after your and Bruce's comments). >> > I can't resist misquoting Paul Vixie - if I can persuade you to > remove PAM, perhaps you have a problem :) For secure distros, PAM > seems to be a common feature. *My* problem with it is that I don't > think it will do much for me (one human user on all my systems) > and I believe it has the power to seriously hinder me if I don't > take the time to learn how to configure it. PAM isn't really all that difficult to configure if you can determine the difference from sufficient and required. :-) Having said that, however, I can't disagree with your points above. >> … >> >>> And for --disable-nis : if you don't intend to use nis the >>> result >>> is positive : you can compile the package with current >>> glibc. >> Ok, I do not intend to have a nis server. My doubt was if other packages, >> like ssh, apache-ant or rsync would need it. Please, notice that I have no >> knowledge about the subject, so probably I will not need it. >> > NIS is (perhaps) about 'single sign-on' : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Information_Service > And, if you *do* want that with current glibc, I can't help. > > You can revert the symbol changes in glibc. They did not actually remove the functionality, it is simply deprecated, and thus, symbols hidden. You can't link to it anymore, but existing runtime deps should continue to work as expected if you installed a newer glibc.
-- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
