libc6 version of libpam0 is in incoming.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager | topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Hands [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 11:30 AM
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: ppp & pam (was: Re: ppp's ip-{up,down} and possible
> utilization of 'run-parts')
>
> > Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I thought I'd call the PAM-free ppp package ppp-base, like
> perl-base.
> > > I'm still not sure about the best way to do this though. It looks
> like the
> > > only thing that needs to be different is the pppd binary, so:
> > >
> > > Should I make ppp contain only the pppd with PAM binary, and have
> it
> > > depend on ppp-base (which would contain most of the rest of ppp),
> and
> > > use alternates on pppd ?
> >
> > That sounds pretty complicated with little gains. What's the
> > disadvantage of having PAM in the normal pppd. More complicated to
> > setup? Much bigger binary?
>
> ppp is needed for doing an install from the internet via a dialup
> link. PAM is not needed until you want people to log into the system,
> so libpam is a waste of space on the install disks.
>
> I'm not certain it's worth the effort either, since libpam is only 21k
> and binary is almost exactly the same size (112 bytes bigger) ---
> opinions ?
>
> BTW does libpam0 need to be recompiled for libc6 before I can use it
> in ppp ?
>
> Cheers, Phil.
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe"
> to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
