For the record, http://bugs.debian.org/474291 claims that include is not equivalent to @include. Since I don't know what the differences are, I can't comment on the assertion below about the equivalence for all the stacks and not bringing anything new or really useful. --- Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:46 -0700, shaul Karl wrote: > > Am I right that the directive @include, including > the > > prefix character @, is not documented? > The @include directive is not supported by Linux-PAM > upstream at all. > There might be some distributions which patch it in. > This directive is equivalent to using the regular > include directive for > all of the stacks and as it thus doesn't bring > anything new and really > useful, the patch was not applied to upstream > sources. > -- > Tomas Mraz > No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, > turn back. > > Turkish proverb > > _______________________________________________ > Pam-list mailing list > Pam-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list > ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com _______________________________________________ Pam-list mailing list Pam-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
