On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:03PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Scott Mitchell wrote:
> > However, this got me thinking -- is the right solution here to have a PAM
> > module that does the setusercontext(), so programs that already know about
> > PAM will just work, without needing to know about setusercontext() as well?
> > I can see that causing problems with programs (login, xdm, etc.) that
> > already understand both mechanisms, but they could always not use this
> > hypothetical pam_setusercontext module, right?
> >
> > So, is this a worthwhile thing to have? I'm happy to either write the PAM
> > module or fix kdm, but I'd rather not waste my time learning about PAM
> > internals if people think this would be a pointless exercise.
>
> No. THis is a bad idea. Fix KDM instead.
OK, but could you explain *why* you think it's a bad idea?
Scott
--
===========================================================================
Scott Mitchell | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels
Cambridge, England | 0x54B171B9 | don't get sucked into jet engines"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 0xAA775B8B | -- Anon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
