On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
> [...]
> I'd prefer just the opposite. Expecting each module to handle the ERANGE
> error independently is going to require large-scale changes, and I'd
> rather that the logic to do so be put in one place to avoid the need to
> change similar code in numerous places in the future if something is found
> to be incorrect in the implementation.
> [...]
This raises and supports a wider question. Several modules have code
replicated across them, such as:
1. for interacting with the user;
2. for acting on certain common arguments ("try_first_pass");
3. (probably others).
This "getpwnam_r()" processing is probably another such piece of code,
useful to several modules.
It seems that we should strongly consider introducing some sort of library
of module support functions, that individual modules could use, instead of
having to replicate them. This would greatly ease module maintenance and
would also assist development of new functionality (both of new modules
and within existing modules).
Hitherto, the maintenance of "Linux-PAM"[1] has been cautious; the
updates have been minor tweaks. I understand the reasoning behind this
during the last 12-18 months. But I wonder whether it is now time to be a
little more adventurous to allow such developments to take place?
This would probably be done as a new "major" release branch, rather than
on the "minor" 0.76 succession.
Any thoughts?
[1] Oh, how I wish it were called "Open-PAM" or some such!
--
: David Lee I.T. Service :
: Systems Programmer Computer Centre :
: University of Durham :
: http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road :
: Durham :
: Phone: +44 191 374 2882 U.K. :
