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

Re: 2nd call: binary incompatibility



On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
[...]
>The two functions in question are pam_strerror() and the conversation
>function/protocol.
>
>In the former case, Solaris decided to require the pamh argument to be
>supplied to the pam_strerror() function.  We (in keeping with the PAM RFC)
>do not.
>
>The latter case concerns the pam_response structure and how it is filled. 
>In some cases they do as we do and in others we differ.

Is there *any* good argument for going with the Solaris way?  Perhaps it's
better in a multi-threading environment?

Unless we have enough weight to impose our will (and I don't think we do),
stick with Solaris and the "standard".  Sun is unlikely to adapt to us.

-- 
    Steve Coile           P a t r i o t  N e t      Systems Engineering
 scoile@patriot.net      Patriot Computer Group        (703) 277-7737



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