Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Piotr Karbowski <slashbeast@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 15:38:33
Message-Id: e5e12ead-cd18-661b-b5d2-9b0cf45b1c7d@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] pam: thoughts on modernizing pam_limits configuration that Gentoo ships with by Sam James
1 Hi,
2
3 On 11/12/2022 13.46, Sam James wrote:
4 > You should still file a bug for two reasons:
5 > 1. Paper trail
6 > 2. sys-auth/pambase has another maintainer who*is* active :)
7 >
8 > As for the question in your post, I'll have a think. Thanks!
9
10 I am not against creating a bug, I do see it however as inefficient in
11 this very case.
12
13 I do know however if I were to create bug and assign it to current
14 single pam maintainer, it would hardly get noticed by other people,
15 greatly reducing the feedback. Changing defaults will affect vast
16 majority of Gentoo users, so gentoo-dev ml was the place I choosen.
17
18 I didn't realized that you are maintainer of pambase, though the
19 /etc/security/limits.conf belongs to sys-libs/pam that has only zlogene.
20
21 I did mail zlogene regarding another package recently and got no
22 response, thus pam itself seems maintainer-needed to me, and because of
23 it a candidate for me to join as another maintainer and do the changes.
24 I do not think it would make much sense for me to then create bug for
25 myself to make this change of defaults, paper trail would be the commit
26 subject and message itself, or perhaps I did not understood of what you
27 meant here by paper trail, would appreciate clarification.
28
29 It would be great if you were interested in joining pam itself, and I am
30 interested to also joining pambase, since those are so co-dependent it
31 does not make sense to have split maintainers there.
32
33 -- Piotr.