Le Tue, 6 May 2014 09:36:59 -0700, Steve Langasek <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:12:59AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Laurent Bigonville <[email protected]> writes: > > > > On Fedora they are using: > > > > session optional pam_keyinit force revoke > > > force revoke looks good to me. I'm not sure that force is > > necessary, but it's probably a good idea in general. > > > > As it's only available on linux architectures, I was thinking of > > > adding a '-' at the beginning of the call. Do you think this is > > > OK for Debian? > > > Yes, although this is where it would be nice if this could somehow > > be handled by pam-auth-update so that the PAM module wouldn't be > > configured at all on systems that don't have it. > > As discussed on IRC, we don't want this to silently fail on Linux > systems because of some unrelated bug; that will just cause > difficult-to-diagnose problems. Since the module will be present on > all Linux systems, it's better to ship a different pam config on > Linux vs. non-Linux architectures, which can be done fairly easily > without duplication using dh-exec. > And couldn't we use the (dirty) trick we are using for pam_selinux? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
