[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: further package removals/potential package removals



On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 12:57 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 11:52 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > 
> > The problem is pam_console (and maybe others) modules (which are by
> > default configured to be used) require glib2. And I don't see any
> > possibility to make the pam_console optional. So you can tune your
> > minimum install so the pam_console is removed from all /etc/pam.d/...
> > configs and then you can remove glib2. Or you can write a patch for all
> > pam modules in redhat which use glib2 which replace the functionality
> > provided by glib2 by another means and if it's good it will be applied.
> > But I won't write it as I have many more useful things to do.
> 
> So does everyone else - that's why they use a working, tested, widely-
> available
> utility library instead of writing their own string and hash table
> classes
> in every single package.
Of course I agree with you that it's generaly a good idea to use glib2
instead of writing own string and hash table classes, but as glib2 isn't
much used in PAM, it could be replaced. I didn't say that I would like
to replace it just if someone wrote a patch which replaces it I would
look at it and maybe applied it.

-- 
Tomas Mraz <tmraz redhat com>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]