Does `@include' equivalent to `include'?

[shaul Karl]

  For the record, http://bugs.debian.org/474291 claims
that include is not equivalent to @include. Since I
don't know what the differences are, I can't comment
on the assertion below about the equivalence for all
the stacks and not bringing anything new or really
useful.

--- Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:46 -0700, shaul Karl wrote:
> > Am I right that the directive @include, including
> the
> > prefix character @, is not documented? 
> The @include directive is not supported by Linux-PAM
> upstream at all.
> There might be some distributions which patch it in.
> This directive is equivalent to using the regular
> include directive for
> all of the stacks and as it thus doesn't bring
> anything new and really
> useful, the patch was not applied to upstream
> sources.
> -- 
> Tomas Mraz
> No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone,
> turn back.
>                                              
> Turkish proverb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pam-list mailing list
> Pam-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com