Hi, > The other issue you don't really touch on, is why should this be hard- > coded in various programs when this is seems exactly like why PAM was > invented. Oh this was touched on, thoroughly, in the URL cited in the patch. > One of the issues with systemd is that it is doesn't re-use > existing interfaces, but tends to force programs to make changes to work > with sysd There is no existing interface that meets the needs here. The closest you can get is a pam session stack module, but as stated before, that idea has been rejected (and I've already covered why on this thread and on the systemd pull request). > Minimizing code changes in existing, working code seems like a > safer design decision. Safer than needlessly running code as root that doesn't need to be? We're just going to have to agree to disagree I guess. > It is especially true that the more code paths > that are added to programs, the more test paths and opportunities for > failure are added. This I totally agree with! --Ray -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
