also sprach Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.23.1527 +0200]: > > Sure, for the better. In this case, however, you are the only one > > who thinks it's better. > > Given that, as you say, there are numerous discussions on the net > about it, that obviously can't be true.
In this case it is, or are there people agreeing with you *in this thread*? If not, invite the others to join, unless, of course, they've changed their mind. > I have already looked at several which you and others have brought > up. In every case I've seen so far, I've shown that pam_console is > at least no worse than the alternatives, and often actually > better. Then please use it. > If the code is bad, it can be fixed. Then please fix it. > If the sole technical objection to it is bad implementation, why > didn't the Debian developers decide to simply fix the code, as > they have done with so many other projects? Because noone of us wanted to use it, apparently. Remember, we're volunteers, we do work that we want to do. We don't really work on request. > Did you read my analysis, and seriously consider what I wrote? Yes. As said, please take it up and provide a well-tested libpam-console package that does not fall short to the concerns I and others have raised. > > Go ahead and provide the solid solution then. Don't expect > > others to do it for you. > > Isn't that precisely what Linux distributions do? They provide > solutions for people so they don't have to do it themselves... No. We collect solutions by people so that others don't have to redo them. In this case, we'd collect your solution. Anyway, since I am of no help to you, I'll withdraw from this discussion. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system it is ok to let your mind go blank, but please turn off the sound.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
