| 1 |
Devs, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
According to what I've gathered, this library is going the |
| 4 |
way of the dodo bird. The only package in the portage tree |
| 5 |
that thinks it needs this library, is Linux-PAM (sys-libs/pam). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The only pieces of PAM that require this library appear to |
| 8 |
be pam_radius.so and pam_pwdb.so. All of Gentoo's pam.d/config |
| 9 |
files are presently (or should be) using pam_unix.so, where in |
| 10 |
the past pam_pwdb.so might have been interchangable. The radius |
| 11 |
module sounds like a good fit for "optional build-time support" |
| 12 |
to me. Also, I wonder whether or not the pam_radius.so could |
| 13 |
be ported/patched to use whatever pam_unix.so uses, as it |
| 14 |
doesnt need this library and I think the two provide similar |
| 15 |
functionality/support anyways. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Add to this, apparently RedHat now calls this package |
| 18 |
pwdb-compat, implying that its going to be soon legacy code. |
| 19 |
Some distributions might still be using pam_pwdb.so in their |
| 20 |
pam.d/configs but I don't think it's really common much |
| 21 |
anymore. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So what's the point? Well, if we are into it, I suppose |
| 24 |
that sys-libs/pwdb could be made into a USE pwdb inside the |
| 25 |
sys-libs/pam package, thereby facilitating all of the default |
| 26 |
profiles to trim out sys-libs/pwdb that is installed by default |
| 27 |
on every Gentoo Linux system. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm not totally bent on doing this immediately or anything. |
| 30 |
There might be some squeakies with *possibly* a very old |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux system which *is* using pam_pwdb.so in it's |
| 32 |
pam.d/configs somewhere, which in theory could lead to them |
| 33 |
getting "locked out" by installing a sys-libs/pam without |
| 34 |
USE=pwdb. Thus I ask for your comments/concerns please; |
| 35 |
Azarah does this sound pretty much like an OK idea to |
| 36 |
pursue? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Donny |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives