On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:42:41AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 04:45:50PM +0100, Roelof Osinga wrote:
> > > Grand gesture. Laudable even. Yeah, that PAM sure seems to've
> > > become popular. The Courier IMAP port also insisted upon its
> > > installation. Insisted in that fiddling with the makefile only
> > > resulted in failure to configure. But that's a whole different
> > > story.
> >
> > Would it be a good idea to start using /etc/pam.d ala RedHat, instead of
> > the monolithic /etc/pam.conf?
> >
> > As far as I can see the support is already there, it's just not being
> > used due to the presence of the /etc/pam.conf.
> >
> > This would make installing PAM entries far easier for the ports.
>
> Ports shouldn't touch /etc.
>
> Does the existance of /etc/pam.conf precludes /usr/local/etc/pam.d from
> working?
Yes, at present (well, it doesn't know about /usr/local/etc/pam.d):
from pam(8):
ticate users. This dynamic configuration is set by the
contents of the single PAM configuration file
/etc/pam.conf. Alternatively, the configuration can be
set by individual configuration files located in the
/etc/pam.d/ directory. The presence of this directory
will cause PAM to ignore /etc/pam.conf.
FWIW, I agree about the need for the change.
Kris
--
NOTE: To fetch an updated copy of my GPG key which has not expired,
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP signature
