Re: patch for pam authentication in cvs

Larry Jones wrote:

>Brian Murphy writes:
>  
>
>>Otherwise I can't see why one of these patches is not included
>>in the standard CVS they are no worse than the standard
>>system password checking mechanism.
>>    
>>
>
>We try not to throw things into CVS just because someone thinks it would
>be a good idea.  When lots of people tell us they are successfully using
>a patch and would like it to be included in the standard distribution,
>then we consider it.  (Of course, if some *developer* thinks it's a good
>idea, the process does get considerably sortened.)  Now that we have an
>"experimental" branch, there's a better chance of things getting
>accepted there.
>
>  
>
Well it just so happens that PAM in particular is mentioned on the 
wishlist of
future enhancements (cvsclient.info) and also mentioned in the current 
password
checking code as the right fix to a hack on HP/UX to get the encrypted 
password.

/Brian