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

Re: Another 2nd call: binary incompatibility



"Andrew G. Morgan" writes:
>The change is as follows: 

Ah, a convention shared by modules and user code, that does not affect
the framework.  That's fun.  It's a little harder than pam_strerror(),
but should be possible to test reasonably thoroughly and shouldn't take
that long to implement, at least in the code I have written.  It is,
at least, not subtle.

One other suggestion: release a working .58 without these changes, then
put these changes into a pre-59.  That way people can have a known-good
pam with the current feature set and a development version.  Sound
reasonable?

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] []