[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: Speak now, or...

I was just asking how much you wanted to change the PAM implementation on   
Linux away from the standard. If you are willing to do one thing, then   
why not others? Is it a good thing to change one item and not another?

This sort of logic is what causes schisms in developments. It would be a   
shame to have this cause two different implementations of PAM for Linux.

From:  Michael K. Johnson[SMTP:johnsonm@redhat.com]
Sent:  Thursday, July 25, 1996 12:49 PM
To:  pam-list
Subject:  Re: Speak now, or...

Al Longyear writes:
>If so, then there are some MAJOR flaws which we can clean up and discard   

>at a whim -- starting with the golden rule that an application may not   

>call pam_set_item (PAM_AUTHTOK, ...)!

Huh?  How did that come up?  I never said anything about PAM_AUTHTOK.

Read _The Linux-PAM Application Developers' Guide_, section 2, "The
*public interface* to Linux-PAM" (emphasis mine).

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []