Bug#474291: /etc/pam.d*: please use include instead of @include or document @include
Sam, Kees, Given that upstream supports a syntax that does satisfy our needs, should we switch the recommendation to 'include' instead of '@include' after all, so we can deprecate @include and eventually drop one of the patches in our delta with upstream? The last time I spoke with upstream about this one, the conclusion was that only one syntax was needed and Debian should switch to the one upstream implements. This would obviously be a long transition, since we will need to coordinate with all packages shipping /etc/pam.d/ files, but it would be straightforward... and I can't see any compelling reason to continue to use a syntax that differs from upstream's. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#474291: /etc/pam.d/*: please use include instead of @include or document @include
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:24:03PM -0700, shaul Karl wrote: > Package: libpam-runtime > Version: 0.99.7.1-6 > Severity: Normal > I was told that @include directive is equivalent to > a plain include directive. It is not. > I can't find the documentation for @include. That is a bug that should be fixed. > Can one use both @include and include at the same time? Yes, though I see no reason to use the 'include' syntaxt instead of @include. > Please document @include or better, in my opinion, replace it with plain > include. I won't be doing the latter, no. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#474291: /etc/pam.d/*: please use include instead of @include or document @include
Package: libpam-runtime Version: 0.99.7.1-6 Severity: Normal I was told that @include directive is equivalent to a plain include directive. I can't find the documentation for @include. Can one use both @include and include at the same time? Please document @include or better, in my opinion, replace it with plain include. You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
