Chris Jaeger wrote: > Yes, I am aware of this. However, as I am dealing with several > applications that may suffer from this problem, and I have had some > difficulty contacting maintainers, I would prefer to solve it in fewer > patches if possible. > Replying to my own post... Perhaps I can solve this in 0 patches. What are the reasons one would or wouldn't use pam_pwdb instead of pam_unix? Thanks, Chris
