[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.



David Wood writes:
>All right, fair enough. I'd recommend changing it now, though.

If we change it again, I'll try to remember to make this change.  We
won't make an update for this again; most people just upgrade the whole
OS, which is what we "officially" support, even though we try to make
piecemeal upgrades easy too.

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

I'm sorry, to what documentation are you referring?

>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
>it?

I'm sorry, what is the point?  No matter how many of them there are,
it will still work.  If you want to know which programs are linked
against libpam, you can get filelists out of the packages that require
libpam.so.0 and go through running ldd on them.

>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
>mistake?

It's configurable in the source code now.  The source can be configured to
support either or both.  If both are configured in, then entries in
/etc/pam.d/ take precedence over those in /etc/pam.conf

I suggest reading the pam section in the Red Hat Linux 4.2 manual,
which is available on our web site.  It's short, but should resolve
a few things for you.

michaelkjohnson

"Magazines all too frequently lead to books and should be regarded by the
 prudent as the heavy petting of literature."            -- Fran Lebowitz




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