Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:39:51 -0600 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: OPIE breakage: backout & patch for review Message-ID: <20030216153951.A98564@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030216204847.GA5233@nagual.pp.ru>; from ache@nagual.pp.ru on Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:48:47PM %2B0300 References: <20030216185426.GB52253@dragon.nuxi.com> <200302161911.h1GJBnaX034785@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20030216204847.GA5233@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* De: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> [ Data: 2003-02-16 ] [ Subjecte: Re: OPIE breakage: backout & patch for review ] > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 19:11:49 +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > > > In the case where an application is OPIEised and not PAMised, we > > need to figure out something; PAMizing such apps is not terribly > > hard. If any of them are in the base system, then this situation > > We are not in the situation to force users and admins to rewrite their > OPIE apps under new PAM framework. I always believe that non-destructive > for OPIE defaults (i.e. PAM only) solution is possible here, but not > being PAM specialist, can't demonstrate it. Recent des commits solve > problem correctly. Can you explain how this stops purely opieized apps from working? I was under the impression the implicit case was still there, we just have a more explicit contract with the OPIE system. -- Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> - AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnet OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer - ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD - Never trust an ELF, COFF or Mach-O! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030216153951.A98564>