Re: PAM authentication patch - v2

Mark D. Baushke wrote:

>The patch applies cleanly and auto-detects PAM support. I have fully
>tested it on FreeBSD (where is passes all of the regression tests in
>sanity.sh), and test-compiled it on Redhat 7.3 GNU/Linux and Solaris 7.
>  
>
Cool. Nice to see.

>I suspect that the AC_HELP_STRING for --enable-pam should really
>indicate that it will be enabled if it is detected. 
>  
>
Can do if necessary. I would prefer to wait with another spin until all
the remaining issues are resolved and then submit one final version (if
required)

>  
>
>>+    [Use to enable system authentication with PAM instead of using the 
>>+    simple getpwnam interface.  This allows authentication (in theory) 
>>+    with any PAM module, e.g. on systems with shadow passwords or via LDAP]), ,
>>    
>>
>
>The text probably needs to be rewritten as something like this:
>
>    [Use to enable system authentication with PAM instead of using the
>    simple getpwnam interface (default). This allows authentication (in
>    theory) with any PAM module (e.g., on systems with shadow passwords
>    or via LDAP). Use --disable-pam to disable this feature.]), ,
>  
>
When consensus is reached I will rewrite (or the person who applies the 
patch can
do it).

>To be honest, I am not in favor of this being the default (this is
>probably not a big surprise to you). I'd rather that the HAVE_PAM logic
>be separate from USE_PAM logic. 
>
>It may be that I am only stating the minority opinion, but I think it is
>worth raising this point for consideration.
>  
>
This is fine. I would like to hear other people opinions on this and I 
will not
object if the consensus is to disable PAM detection per default without 
the extra
option to configure.

>BTW: You will probably want to send the contrib/pam directory contents
>separately or diff them each against /dev/null or something... I suppose
>that Derek could create the pam directory in contrib to make life easier
>for you.
>  
>
They were with the previous patch version. I just forgot to give -N to diff.
Just give me the word and I will send a new complete patch but you can 
just edit the
previous patch to extract the necessary. I think I have wasted enough 
bandwith
already ;-).

/Brian