Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:13:22 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: sean@mcneil.com Cc: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: xscreensaver Message-ID: <20031204145648.W23453@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <1070576873.3fcfb4e92ccf8@mcneil.com> References: <1070573010.28210.1.camel@blue.mcneil.com> <oprzod39gi8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> <1070576873.3fcfb4e92ccf8@mcneil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 sean@mcneil.com wrote: > This is part of a bigger issue. It boils down as to whether FreeBSD should > support LDAP and how. There is no "FreeBSD" to support ldap. There are only interested users who are willing to put the work into supporting it (or there are not). > This is one reason why the base system is moving to > dynamic libraries vs. static. ldap specifically isn't, no. Better support for nsswitch in general (including ldap) is _one_ of the reasons, yes. > The question is, do we want xscreensaver to work? It works perfectly for the vast majority of freebsd users, including the large number of users who use xscreensaver without locking enabled. The user community who is affected by the --without-pam option is extremely small. > 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. This statement indicates that you have no actual knowledge of the situation at hand. > 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. A long time ago, the pam support for xscreensaver didn't compile. The last time I got it to compile, it didn't work. Thus, it's been disabled ever since. (See above for why this isn't actually a problem except for a very few people.) Now, since I don't really use pam for anything if I can help it, and since I definitely don't have ldap anywhere, I'm not going to be adding features along this line (even protected by WITH_ knobs, which I agree is a good idea). However, if you, or your friends, want to try enabling the support, and then THOROUGHLY test it, in both pam AND non-pam cases, I'll definitely be interested in your work, and I will probably even commit it. What I won't do is blindly re-enable an option by default that I know to have a tremendous downside potential. It's purely a cost::benefit issue. Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031204145648.W23453>