[Bug 1058805] Review Request: mod_authnz_pam - PAM authorization checker and PAM Basic Authentication provider

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058805

Jan Pazdziora <jpazdziora@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jpazdziora@xxxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #2 from Jan Pazdziora <jpazdziora@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Rob Crittenden from comment #1)
> Is the 2.2 vs 2.4 logic needed? I don't think 2.2 has shipped in Fedora
> since Fedora 17. It looks like some other Apache modules do this, do you
> know how long this will be required?

The goal is to get the module into/built for RHEL 6 which has Apache 2.2, and
for consistency reasons I prefer to maintain just one .spec file in the
upsream. So the answer is "as along as we want to build for RHEL 6/EPEL 6" as
well.

> You use a glob if the module configuration directory differs from the Apache
> configuration directory but a specific file otherwise. Is there a reason for
> this?
> 
> Similarly you use a glob for the shared library but there is only one file,
> so why not be specific?

No specific reason really. I probably used a pattern from other module. I can
can fix it or leave it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]