13 Mar 2026, 21:17 by [email protected]: > As I wrote in my 1st reply, I will not get in the way of people wanting > to setup a lighter but also less secure system, so I will not remove > options. It seems I am therefore not convinced that 1) is a good idea, > but please do try be even more specific, if you think that some > concrete edits would be sensible without hiding options for more > adventurous users. > > Same for 2): Can you suggest concrete changes to the documentation? > That would help me reflect on whether I find that an improvement over > the existing texts, and something that I feel that I am ok maintaining. > I'm unsure that I understand your question. Maybe we're working at different purposes. I believe that software (and everything, for that matter) should do what it's advertised to do. If Debian's radicale won't authenticate through PAM without patching, it shouldn't imply that it can. That was the point of my suggestions: it's OK to say No.
If users want to patch radicale to authenticate over plain text or black magic, they can. Upstream has instructions on how to install through pip and git. It seems easier and safer to maintain patches against source than against Debian's updates. Directing determined users to upstream seems far less aggravating to fielding complaints and bug reports. At least for me it is.
