On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 06:39:12 -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 09:46:21AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote: > > I'm now preparing an upload that'll mark PAM as orphaned. > > Ack! We need pam to be maintained if we want to enable it's use in potato.
I agree; my time resources are fairly limited and do not allow for the kind of commitment PAM maintenance would mean. (E.g., the modifications I made to link the .so files against the libraries they depend on should really be incorporated upstream, but I've not found time to forward&lobby) > I'll take it, if no one intends on doing so themselves. Great. On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:34:45 -0500, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote: > Another Ack! I'd like to see cracklib support enabled in PAM. Can we > coordinate uploads here? I plan on a new upload of cracklib this weekend > which will close all existing bug reports. Perhaps the best way for cracklib support in PAM is to redefine PAM's packages into "base" and "non-base" ones. The "base" ones should be intended for future (potato) inclusion in the base system (for use by e.g. login); the "non-base" ones could require more libraries and auxiliary programs. Such a change in packaging could also be used as an opportunity to merge libpam0g and libpam0g-util (which have a mutual dependency). On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:31:57 -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > Since no one else has spoken up, I will take over pam. I will also look > into cracklib support being put back in, You're misunderstanding things here: PAM so far has not supported cracklib. At one point, I was considering adding the support, and modified the build system to add -lcracklib for the pamutil .so's, but I never got around to really enabling the cracklib build. Greetings, Ray -- UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY, UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan