Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 17:21:20 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?utf-8?Q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=) To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpam/modules/pam_unix pam_unix.8 pam_unix.c Message-ID: <86ps5fqosv.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20070428140247.GC14847@comp.chem.msu.su> (Yar Tikhiy's message of "Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:02:47 %2B0400") References: <200704260639.l3Q6d1SH027885@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070426105458.GA98415@nevermind.kiev.ua> <20070427162614.GG3991@comp.chem.msu.su> <20070428131748.GA51455@nevermind.kiev.ua> <20070428140247.GC14847@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> writes: > The funny fact is that now sshd(8) behaves consistently, and it's > partly due to my change. [...] FWIW, although I was either too busy or too distracted to review Yar's patch when he submitted it in March: as the maintainer of both PAM and OpenSSH, I believe the patch is correct and I approve of Yar's commit. He has simply modified pam_unix(8) to behave in accordance with what was already documented in pw(8), long after OpenSSH was modified (by the vendor) to do so when not using PAM. I don't see that there's anything to argue about. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86ps5fqosv.fsf>