Sam Geeraerts <[email protected]> writes: > The comments in doc/NOTES indicate that's it's not going to happen in > the future either.
It's some years since I wrote that... There was also some discussion on debian lists at the time. I'm still not very fond of PAM, and I think it is unfortunate if its use is mandatory on debian. Nevertheless, if you look at the code intended to become lsh-3.0, it would be a bit more reasonable to add real PAM support, since the user authentication will run as a spearate process (lshd-userauth), which can even use blocking i/o. But that's not going to happen soon, so it's of little help for the debian package of current lsh. > Although the code does seem to have some PAM support in the form of > lsh-pam-checkpw. That somewhat crude hack is only for verifying passwords against PAM. > But that probably wouldn't set the umask if it were enabled. You're right. It doesn't do anything related to the state of login sessions. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
