On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 08:27 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 31 March 2005 08:17 am, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenà wrote: > > I know this is there also for compatibility, but this makes sys-libs/pam > > ebuild very bloated as for now, and still I don't know a reason to have it > > there. > > if you read pam-0.78-r2 and do a search in bugzilla, you'll see that > pam_console is no longer on by default > > some people actually do want it, so ripping it out isnt very nice ;)
Well, as its with OpenPAM, and on bsd, I do not see an issue. I am for one not going to support OpenPAM on linux, and dont think we should .... -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
