On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:46 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 6/15/07, Denis Leroy <denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Should it use a scriptlet that modifies /etc/pam.d/gdm in > > %post (see http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232857 ). > > It should just work for default desktop installs moving forward. I > frankly don't care how. > > > Or add a patch to the gdm package and make it require pam_keyring ? > > uhm should avoid making this a hard requirement for gdm. Can pam deal > with a scenario > where pam_keyring is referenced as an optional rule in the auth stack > but the pam_keyring module is not actually installed? And don't we at > least have to also consider this being used in the pam stack for kdm, > since kdm can start a gnome desktop session? Pam deals with it fine (allows login for nonexistent 'optional' modules), but it will issue a nasty warning in syslog. I think that editing gdm config within a %post script is fine. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
