Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schrieb: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Alexander Skwar wrote: >> No, it won't, I'd think. But, why DO you think so? > > Excessive parts of a working system are curretnly opt-dependant on PAM,
That's wrong. Most support optional PAM support, but for most it's not a requirement. > but most also use PAM to get > specific functionality they do not want to provide. Yep. And if those functionalities aren't needed, why use PAM? To learn? I don't think so... > It just a guess, but I'm sure this trend will > get to parts of a minimal system, A minimal system is one, that does NOT use PAM. PAM is another layer and thus not minimal. If what you're writing were true, we'd still use /etc/passwd like on HP-UX 11.00. Ie. no /etc/shadow. > their own. Less size. Less complexity. More code-reusing. Just a guess. Wrong. PAM adds complexity. Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
