[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:
>From http://www.redhat.com/linux-info/pam/docs/pam-4.html
>I was quite aware that this might be wrong, as warned. But hence...
>my reference to the change. 

Ah, yes.

Andrew, since Red Hat uses service names, not daemon names, and since
other distributions appear to be following this as they add PAM support,
what say we change that?

>Consider it a recommendation. If you want to impress people with the
>thoroughness and reliability of this package, make a concise list of your
>changes. Don't make people hunt for it.

A static list is inappropriate because it will change in the future.

The most *concise* list is the list of packages I mentioned before.
That's the right answer for almost everyone.  You are the first person
who I have seen complain that it's not a good enough list.

As far as source files, our pam patches are separate from the rest.

As far as binaries, here's the complete answer to what's linked against

find / -type f -print | while read answer ; do
  [ -x "$answer" ] && ldd  "$answer" 2>/dev/null | grep -q pam && echo "$answer"

It will take a little while...  Note that is may list applications that
are part of groups of applications linked against libpam that don't
actually call libpam -- it was just added to the libraries the package
was linked against, and the linker isn't smart enough to throw away
unneeded libraries.


"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] []