On Thursday 01 June 2006 19:27, Jay Dolan wrote:
So you've never heard of it, but you're willing to guess it's equally as taxing to implement, and that guess should satisfy the rest of us, and its name alone is enough to dismiss it?
Not only by its name - but in general "yes". I've had a short look at OpenPAM's feature list and its sources. The differences I found were: - less security modules (only pam_unix, pam_permit and pam_deny) and - OpenPAM has its own implementation of su(1).
Please be more reasonable about this PAM issue.
Hmm. I do not longer think that PAM will ever be included in CRUX. Also I had a lot conversations regarding PAM and the result was that nobody really wanted/liked it (I'm a bit tired now). But you're right. I said that the work effort needed to _integrate_ OpenPAM is most likely the same as with Linux-PAM. In both cases all applications with password/authentication code would need an additional configure-script switch (--enable-pam or something). Logon programs like 'kdm', 'gdm' or 'imapd' would need a service file placed in /etc/pam.d/ (e.g. /etc/pam.d/xdm). I don't know whether all programs will interact with OpenPAM since I haven't tested it yet. Maybe some external pam modules[1] won't compile with OpenPAM's library.. I really don't know. bye, danm [1] http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/modules.html -- Daniel Mueller Berlin, Germany OpenPGP: 1024D/E4F4383A