POLL: PAM modules

[Jan Rekorajski]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:

> > These I want removed / Te do wywałki:
> > pam_make        - use pam_exec from Linux-PAM / zastępuje go pam_exec z
> > Linux-PAM
> > pam_cap         - ever used? / ktoś tego używa?
> > pam_netid       - ever used? / ktoś tego używa?
> > pam_opie        - ever used? / ktoś tego używa?
> > pam_skey        - ever used? / ktoś tego używa?
> > pam_tcpd        - ever used? / ktoś tego używa?
> > pam_usertty     - ever used? / ktoś tego używa?
> > pam_utmp        - I don't think I even tested it after coding
> >                         / nie przypominam sobie żebym to wogóle
> > przetestował
> 
> Never really used :-) I was playing with skey or opie once...

Skey is not a problem as it exists on its own, the rest is painful as
they can be found only as single .c files or not at all.

> > These are with uncertain future / niepewna przyszłość:
> > pam_console     - either we are maintaining out own version or we're
> >                    taking the oroginal from RH/FC
> >                    / albo pilnujemy własnej twórczości albo bierzemy
> >                    wersje z RH/FC z dobrodziejstwem inwentarza
> 
> What's disadvantage of using upstream version comparing to our own?

Ours is the cut-down version of original RH one.
We may as well take pam_console pam_rps pam_tally2 and pam_timestamp
from FC.

> > pam_homedir     - I'm inclined to patch pam_mkhomedir and symlink
> > pam_homedir
> >                    to it
> >                    / skłaniam się do połatania pam_mkhomedir i
> >                    podlinkowania pam_homedir do niego
> 
> Never used.

I use it, if no one else then I'll just do it.

Janek
-- 
Jan Rekorajski            |  ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl   |  OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC              |                   -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio