1. The following can be useful to document the @include directive. It was noted that one can use include and @include directives at the same configuration file. It is taken from https://www.redhat.com/archives/pam-list/2008-April/msg00010.html --- Nicolas François wrote: > > The syntax for include and @include differ. > > In a /etc/pam.d file, the syntax of a line is: > <type> <control> <module-path> > <module-arguments> > > include is used as a <control> > > @include is used as a <type> > > > Then the semantic is also different: > > include: > include all lines of given type from the > configuration file specified as > an argument to this control. > > @include: > parse a given file at the given location of the > /etc/pam.d file > 2. I think that @include obeys to the least expected surprise rule. I am reading the administrator pam guide. Even though the guide documents the include directive correctly, unless I had written this reply I would remember that the semantics of include is actually the semantics of @include. Obviously, if I had seen a correct configuration file that someone else wrote, I might have notice that contrary to my expectations, include is used as a <control> and not as a <type>. However if I had tried to wrote a configuration file from scratch, I might have wrote a line with include as a <type>. 3. In order to better emphasize and differentiate @include from include to the occasional reader, perhaps one of the two should have renamed source? ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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
