Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:09:56 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: "Sergey Matveychuk" <sem@ciam.ru> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OpenPAM and OSVERSION Message-ID: <xzp8ywonuxn.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <001101c2d103$7f29ad20$0a2da8c0@sem> ("Sergey Matveychuk"'s message of "Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:54:06 %2B0300") References: <3E47213D.2060501@ciam.ru> <xzpznp4o3qp.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <002301c2d0f7$46df3d10$0799763e@semhome> <xzpr8agnzke.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <001101c2d103$7f29ad20$0a2da8c0@sem>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Sergey Matveychuk" <sem@ciam.ru> writes: > > If you've fixed it in a way which requires knowing whether the system > > runs Linux-PAM or OpenPAM, you've fixed it wrong. > OK. Why? Because most PAM problems in ports are bugs in the ports themselves, which Linux-PAM just happens to tolerate and OpenPAM doesn't. In other words, it should be possible to find a solution to the problem which works equally well for Linux-PAM and OpenPAM, without the need to know which is which. And as a last resort, you can make OpenPAM- specific code conditional on the _OPENPAM preprocessor symbol. > What fix will be a right one? I can't tell you unless you show me what you believe needs fixing. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org 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?xzp8ywonuxn.fsf>