Ok, following up on an old discussion (see below). I've submitted a patch to the tracker to create a new module called pam_unshare which does what we discussed here. I did not have our discussion at hand when I sent the patch to the tracker so if I need to send a tarball instead of a patch please let me know. Or if there is anything else I should do, let me know. I want as much as possible to ensure a speedy inclusion of this patch to the mainline PAM. I'm actively using pam_unshare right now so I'd rather see it be a standard part of my distro rather than have to compile my own hacked PAM packages. Thanks, Louis On Saturday 24 May 2008 02:31:05 Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 13:50 -0400, Louis-Dominique Dubeau wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 10:24 -0400, Louis-Dominique Dubeau wrote: > > > It makes sense somewhat. But with the KISS principle in mind - when you > > > want just the unshare, why not create a new module called pam_unshare, > > > which would just call unshare and not do anything else? I think we > > > could accept such module into Linux-PAM. > > > > I have no problem with this approach. I just do not know pam well > > enough to know whether this would have unforeseen consequences or not. > > > > What needs to be done to ensure the presence of pam_unshare in a future > > version of pam? > > Just use some existing module as a template - for example remove all > unnecessary code from pam_namespace + rename all the source files. Also > rewrite the documentation. Then attach a tarball with the module into > the issue tracker on PAM sourceforge.net page. _______________________________________________ Pam-list mailing list Pam-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list
