Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I thought I'd call the PAM-free ppp package ppp-base, like perl-base. > I'm still not sure about the best way to do this though. It looks like the > only thing that needs to be different is the pppd binary, so: > > Should I make ppp contain only the pppd with PAM binary, and have it depend > on > ppp-base (which would contain most of the rest of ppp), and use alternates on > pppd ?
That sounds pretty complicated with little gains. What's the disadvantage of having PAM in the normal pppd. More complicated to setup? Much bigger binary? Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
