On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 16:26 +0200, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenà wrote: > On Thursday 31 March 2005 15:57, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > if pam_console is giving you a hard time on *BSD, then just use.mask it :P > > -mike > As I said is not a problem of bsd in this case. Just look at pam ebuild, is a > mess!
Speak for youself - I think the ebuild is quite decent condition thinking about what it does. > it builds a static glib to be able to build pam_console, there's > conditional of all kinds... > Moving out pam_console (and the rest of optional pam modules, also) into > different ebuilds will make user ables to install what they need without > having a bloated ebuild with conditionals for everything. > Yeah sure, now its just another ebuild to test and update with each version bump - if I wanted to be in the KDE herd, I would have joined it. > This also allow to install/remove pam_console without need to recompile the > entire pam. > # rm -f /lib/security/pam_console.so You need to rebuild gcc to have gcj - I do not see the issue. > I still would like to see some problems deriving from the pam/pam_console > splitting. My fist down your yap. Seriously, it needs to die (like pam_console_devfs*), and any user still wanting it, should get what he asked for. -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
