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

Re: An "orthogonal" way of using libpam


On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:

> > One tiny thing -- I wouldn't neccesarily make it a environment
> > variable, make it an option instead.  Env vars are too hard to keep
> > track of.

> > Matt

Huh, libraries do not have options, it is executables who get them.
Do you Matt mean each program usign libpam has to be modified to know an
extra option? :-)

> config-file=..... will do I think :)

Where would you put that spell Igmar? Into a file? :)

Or did your smiley mean the same as I am trying to formulate:

 - I want to use existing pam-aware programs without modification
 - I want to control pam behaviour (like using my own set of modules)
   when I protect my things with these programs
   (as well as program run by root obey root's instructions)
   but I cannot rely on the existence of a file in any "well known"
   compiled-in location, even a "well-known name in the homedir" would
   *not* (!) work in the long run
   [the same program that calls the same pam-service may have to be run
    by the same user with different module- and rule- sets at different
    times or even simultaneously ]


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