On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 01:27:40PM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Like I said, this is a tangent, and I'm certainly not expecting anyone to
work on this. But it'd be cool if they did.
Just as everybody else is struggling to get away from pam's awful
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 01:27:40PM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > Like I said, this is a tangent, and I'm certainly not expecting anyone to
> > work on this. But it'd be cool if they did.
> Just as everybody else is struggling to get away from pam's awful
> apis...I don't think this would be a s
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:18 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Like I said, this is a tangent, and I'm certainly not expecting anyone to
> work on this. But it'd be cool if they did.
Just as everybody else is struggling to get away from pam's awful
apis...I don't think this would be a step forward; b
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:44:00PM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > 1. In fact, a PAM-backed authority for PolicyKit might be interesting and
> > useful -- but there's a tangent.
> What do you think PolicyKit is using for authentication ?
> See
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/PolicyKit/tree/src/pol
