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

Re: Another 2nd call: binary incompatibility



Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> 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?

It sounds reasonable, however, the 58pre releases are not currently stable. 
There are a number of changes in there that are incomplete (the mapping
functions for example).  I guess I will make an 59preA release of this
current code and go back and tidy up the last code to be a "reasonable" .58
proper.

Cheers

Andrew
-- 
               Linux-PAM, libpwdb, Orange-Linux and Linux-GSS
                  http://parc.power.net/morgan/index.html



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