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

Re: Linux-PAM compile error 0.65



>  > Again, no need. Linux-PAM should just work. I swear. Really. (Well, modulo
>  > changing compilers, and the LOG_AUTHPRIV which appeared which wasn't in
the
>  > last version I played with.)
>  
>    .. and modulo modifications in internal structures, error return
>  codes, etc.
>  
>    I wouldn't be surprised if Linux-PAM && the Linux PAM-aware apps
>  worked on Solaris, iff the Solaris PAM-aware apps were replaced.

the 2.6 PAM apps work with the linux-pam modules and vice-versa. the 2.5 "pam"
apps don't, but then, they're not real pam apps, either. or is this the case
you meant?

>    It may be paranoid, but I don't trust systems I don't have header
>  files for.  "undocumented == non-existent" is a good policy.

that's fine, i consider pam not to exist on 2.5:-)

-D



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