Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:55:14 +0000 From: Scott Mitchell <scott.mitchell@mail.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM, setusercontext, kdm and ports/32273 Message-ID: <20020127115514.A295@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3C534F33.2755EED9@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:03PM -0800 References: <20020126224243.A72777@localhost> <3C534F33.2755EED9@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:03PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Scott Mitchell wrote: > > However, this got me thinking -- is the right solution here to have a PAM > > module that does the setusercontext(), so programs that already know about > > PAM will just work, without needing to know about setusercontext() as well? > > I can see that causing problems with programs (login, xdm, etc.) that > > already understand both mechanisms, but they could always not use this > > hypothetical pam_setusercontext module, right? > > > > So, is this a worthwhile thing to have? I'm happy to either write the PAM > > module or fix kdm, but I'd rather not waste my time learning about PAM > > internals if people think this would be a pointless exercise. > > No. THis is a bad idea. Fix KDM instead. OK, but could you explain *why* you think it's a bad idea? Scott -- =========================================================================== Scott Mitchell | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels Cambridge, England | 0x54B171B9 | don't get sucked into jet engines" scott.mitchell@mail.com | 0xAA775B8B | -- Anon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020127115514.A295>