EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: docs/12377: doc patch for login_cap.
>Number: 12377
>Category: docs
>Synopsis: differences of a NULL login class need amplification
>Originator: Adrian Filipi-Martin
>Release:FreeBSD 3.2-RELEA
: adr...@ubergeeks.com
To: freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org
Subject: docs/12377: doc patch for login_cap.
>Number: 12377
>Category: docs
>Synopsis: differences of a NULL login class need amplification
>Originator: Adrian Filipi-Martin
>Release:Free
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
> someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
> and let me know whether or not the suggested patch is correct.
Quite often, we receive re
>> I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
>> someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
>> and let me know whether or not the suggested patch is correct.
>
>Quite often, we receive requests to improve documentation that are born
>out of
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 06:54:20PM +0400, Alexander Voropay wrote:
>
> AFAIK, most of login_cap functions could be done via PAM subsystem.
>
> It's sound very strange to have two different subsystem with too close
> functions...
Based upon several conversations at USENIX, PAM integration is s
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 08:06:26AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> > I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
> > someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
> > and let me know whethe
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:03:10 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying "Yes, the
> information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically,
> that the "root" account doesn't use the "default" entry) is buried as
> a throw away com
Nope, I did read the docs, hence the patch to the manpage to make
it stand out more clearly. I still am of the opinion that "default" should
mean "default" for everyone. AFIK, there are no other fields in passwd
that have different interpretations/defaults depending upon the UID. This
Sheldon,
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 10:23:06AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying "Yes, the
> > information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically,
> > that the "root" account doesn't use the "default" entry) is buried
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
> login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
This looks much better. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> > With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
> > login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
>
> This looks much better. :-)
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
> someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
> and let me know whether or not the suggested patch is correct.
Quite often, we receive req
>> I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
>> someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
>> and let me know whether or not the suggested patch is correct.
>
>Quite often, we receive requests to improve documentation that are born
>out of a
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 06:54:20PM +0400, Alexander Voropay wrote:
>
> AFAIK, most of login_cap functions could be done via PAM subsystem.
>
> It's sound very strange to have two different subsystem with too close
> functions...
Based upon several conversations at USENIX, PAM integration is st
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 08:06:26AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> > I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
> > someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
> > and let me know whether
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:03:10 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying "Yes, the
> information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically,
> that the "root" account doesn't use the "default" entry) is buried as
> a throw away comm
Nope, I did read the docs, hence the patch to the manpage to make
it stand out more clearly. I still am of the opinion that "default" should
mean "default" for everyone. AFIK, there are no other fields in passwd
that have different interpretations/defaults depending upon the UID. This
i
Sheldon,
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 10:23:06AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying "Yes, the
> > information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically,
> > that the "root" account doesn't use the "default" entry) is buried a
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
> login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
This looks much better. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
wit
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
> > With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
> > login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
>
> This looks much better. :-)
C
20 matches
Mail list logo
