Hello!
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> > One tiny thing -- I wouldn't neccesarily make it a environment
> > variable, make it an option instead. Env vars are too hard to keep
> > track of.
> > Matt
Huh, libraries do not have options, it is executables who get them.
Do you Matt mean each program usign libpam has to be modified to know an
extra option? :-)
> config-file=..... will do I think :)
Where would you put that spell Igmar? Into a file? :)
Or did your smiley mean the same as I am trying to formulate:
- I want to use existing pam-aware programs without modification
- I want to control pam behaviour (like using my own set of modules)
when I protect my things with these programs
(as well as program run by root obey root's instructions)
but I cannot rely on the existence of a file in any "well known"
compiled-in location, even a "well-known name in the homedir" would
*not* (!) work in the long run
[the same program that calls the same pam-service may have to be run
by the same user with different module- and rule- sets at different
times or even simultaneously ]
Regards,
--
Ivan
_______________________________________________
Pam-list@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
