Application pamification

["Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm redhat com>]

Ted Ts'o wrote, long ago:
>I definitely agree with Mark that a new set of PAM-specific utilities is
>wrong.  In fact, that's one of the things I don't like about the shadow
>package is that it has its own set of utilities.  This is enough of a
>point that what we probably ought to do is to distribute *patches* to
>sh-utils, Linux NetKit, util-linux, etc. and hope we can get the package
>maintainers to integrate the patches into their distributions, with
>appropriate conditionals.

Once libmisc is renamed and made a public library, our changes
can be pushed back to their original sources.  I'm currently working
on pamifying apps for Red Hat Linux, and after our changes get
significant testing, I intend to offer our patches to the upstream
maintainers of each package.  That will probably be after our
next beta test.

Once we've done that, I hope that we can remove most, if not all,
apps from the Linux-PAM tarball, and replace them with pointers to
pamified applications and patches to applications whose maintainers
have not accepted pamification patches.  Even if we do include
full applications, we should also include the patches (that's how
we do Red Hat source packages, and it works well, especially when
upstream maintainers release new versions of things).

Sound reasonable?

michaelkjohnson

"Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE make up ALL the conspiracy theories?"