On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, J.H.M. Dassen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:34:45 -0500, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote: > > Another Ack! I'd like to see cracklib support enabled in PAM. Can we > > coordinate uploads here? I plan on a new upload of cracklib this weekend > > which will close all existing bug reports. > > Perhaps the best way for cracklib support in PAM is to redefine PAM's > packages into "base" and "non-base" ones. The "base" ones should be intended > for future (potato) inclusion in the base system (for use by e.g. login); > the "non-base" ones could require more libraries and auxiliary programs. > Such a change in packaging could also be used as an opportunity to merge > libpam0g and libpam0g-util (which have a mutual dependency).
I'm not sure I understand. Would the base and non-base conflict with one another? Or does pam use loadable modules so the base can be compiled without cracklib but later load the cracklib library when non-base is installed? > On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:31:57 -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > Since no one else has spoken up, I will take over pam. I will also look > > into cracklib support being put back in, > > You're misunderstanding things here: PAM so far has not supported cracklib. > At one point, I was considering adding the support, and modified the build > system to add -lcracklib for the pamutil .so's, but I never got around to > really enabling the cracklib build. I see. This makes cracklib's bugs less critical. Still, I plan on uploading fixes this weekend. -- Jean Pierre
