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

Re: I'm sure you get your share of I HATE PAM messages.

On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Michael K. Johnson wrote:

> >Dependency, deschmendency. Who needs them? We can all just guess, right?
> We did not know of any dependency.  If we had known, we would have put
> it in.  It is probably some subtle linker issue that I don't understand.

All right, fair enough. I'd recommend changing it now, though.

> Should be ftp, not ftpd.  The service name, not the daemon name.

So it's just the documentation that's wrong then.

> >So, uh, now I just sit around and hope I notice what versions
> >of what else Pam breaks, since you didn't even feel like MAKING A REAL
> rpm -q --whatrequires libpam.so.0

I read this. It lists the packages, not the files. Some of the packages
are quite large and contain a number of disparate files. It's still

> The service name is ftp.  The daemon name is ftpd.  That hasn't changed. 
> We have not put the "d" in any of the service names. 

Just the documentation.  ;)

> Well, I thought you said that you read the pages that told you about
> pam.  Perhaps you should read them more carefully -- they have answers
> in them, not just advocacy.  You can get a list of these rpms with
> rpm -q --whatrequires libpam.so.0
> There aren't that horribly many of them!

I did read this. My complaint is stylistic. There aren't that horribly
many of them _yet_. There may never be, true, but that's not the point, is

> When you post here, you are talking to him.  Andrew Morgan maintains the
> documentation.  Post changes here so that the rest of us can do technical
> review.  Thanks!

OK. Before I start, can someone clear up the ambiguity regarding pam.conf
and pam.d both appearing to be active simultaneously? Bug, feature, or my

David Wood

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