Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:27:53 -0800 From: sean@mcneil.com To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: DougB@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: xscreensaver Message-ID: <1070576873.3fcfb4e92ccf8@mcneil.com> In-Reply-To: <oprzod39gi8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> References: <1070573010.28210.1.camel@blue.mcneil.com> <oprzod39gi8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is part of a bigger issue. It boils down as to whether FreeBSD should support LDAP and how. This is one reason why the base system is moving to dynamic libraries vs. static. The question is, do we want xscreensaver to work? PAM is becoming a defacto standard and to not support it seems counter-productive. xscreensaver will check your installation to see if you have PAM. If you do, then it will compile it in. Unless, of course, you disable it. I would love to hear the reasoning as to why PAM should not be supported. I'm sure you have some misgivings you haven't explained. $0.02 Sean Quoting Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:23:30 -0800, Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Can we remove the --without-pam from xscreensaver and xscreensaver-gnome > > now? It cripples systems using LDAP. > > Does they build with pam support/enable by default? If yes, then I > disagree for to remove the --without-pam. I only will support to add the > WITH_PAM define, but by default the pam should be disable. > > Cheers, > Mezz > > > Thanks, > > Sean > > > -- > bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1070576873.3fcfb4e92ccf8>