Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:30:23 +0930 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway <kkenn@rebel.net.au> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: Dom.Mitchell@palmerharvey.co.uk, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAM & LDAP in FreeBSD, and userfs too. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907231629470.87625-100000@morden.rebel.net.au> In-Reply-To: <199907230558.WAA75688@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 04:59:59PM +0700, Max Khon wrote: > > > > > > PAM is also "using masses of weird shared objects" but nevertheless it's > > > quite usable > > > > By statically linked binaries? > > Our PAM implementation works for static binaries too. See the > sources for the gory details. Basically it creates a library that > includes all the possible modules, and selects the right one at > runtime. There's some linker set magic involved. This means you can't add in a new module without recompiling the static library, correct? That seems to defeat the purpose of PAM being modular for the static case :-( Kris 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9907231629470.87625-100000>