On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 18:09 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > forwarded 223280 https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3240 > > thanks > > > > Don't worry about me for this bug; I actually stopped using Samba a year > > > or so ago. However, unless somebody else's added a similar feature, my > > > patch (or a recode, which may be easier) would probably still be nice in > > > Samba. > > > > So, feel free to forward the patch to the Samba development list, if you > > > want, but don't spend too much time dealing with it. > > > The patch seems barely adaptable to current sources. > > > However, as I'm no in the position of judging whether such feature is > > relevant or not, I reported this to upstream as is. > > > If I receive comments from upstream, I'll forward them here. > > FWIW, the reason this patch was never applied/forwarded before was because > I'm not convinced it's necessary; it's trivial to preload user entries into > the smbpasswd database with disabled passwords if that's what the admin > wants, without any requirement to modify pam_smbpass in this manner, and > it's arguably less error-prone to do so, at which point pam_smbpass does > what's expected without any further modifications.
Sounds like a good reason to kill it to me. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College http://hawkerc.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
