On Wednesday 06 April 2005 23:38, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > - we need an ebuild for openpam (i've wrote one, but still misses a few > > points, mainly for the missing thigns here stated) > And you/bsd_peeps will obviously maintain it. Sure, as I said I'm taking care of it and I'll do for all the time I can.
> > openpam will pdepend on > > freebsd-pam-modules to provide both in a simple way. > Why? What good will they do on linux? Just stick them in bsd profile. Mainly, openpam is shipped without any kind of module. If someone would like to replace Linux-PAM with openpam on a Linux system (it's possible), I'd much prefer to provide it with everything he needs. Linux-PAM builds its own modules, openpam just provide pam implementation and needs other packages to provide the basic modules. FreeBSD's modules should work on Linux and this would make possible the switch between Linux-PAM and openpam. > Like I said before, only real reason why I will biatch about this one, > is its called 'pam' on all linux distro's, and it will be another lost > history (ok, so the workaround is a schlepp) case without real cause. Actually it's called libpam usually :) Mainly, calling it pam is usual on linux-centric systems, but as Gentoo is not only Linux, and "it's all about choice", having it called as it's named, IMHO, is a way to state clearly what it is. Just take a look to telnet-bsd and netkit-telnetd. On Debian there's netkit-telnet which is called just telnet. Anyway this is only "cosmetic" and for what I "need" or better I feel is needed, this is something which can be omissed. > Ugh, no - just more crud that somebody will have to clean out later. > Like I said, get pam-0.78 and issues fixed, bumped to stable on all > linux archs, and we can scourge the tree. That's a decision up to you as pam mantainers :) Anyway I'm available to add the temporary fixes, trace them, and remove them when all is done, if needed. > > I'll work anyway on a pam_stack hack for openpam, also if I'm not sure > > if, when and how I'll be able to make it work... also I don't like too > > much messing with security stuff :/ > Sorry, you are on your own here. I know and I'll try to do everything I can, but if in the mean time it could be used the other method should be enough until there's a way to "support" pam_stack on openpam. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenà http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/
pgptCX8w1d6bQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
