> On 25/06/26 00:45, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > Are the energy and time going into this effort well spent? > > Upstream has a certain functionality, users appreciate that > functionality, downstream distros and sysadmins mwould like to make use > of that functionality. What does Debian users gain by removing it? >
To stress the point again: Support for config in /usr/lib/pam.d has been documented behaviour since Debian buster. Going against upstream and adding an additional difference between distributions and retroactively removing that feature seems like a lot of effort and possible breakage for little gain and reminds me of how Debian carried a fork of polkit 105 for many releases (which thankfully ended with Debian bookworm). At work we carry a lot of /usr/share/pam-config snippets so as to ensure PAM configs are always in a reasonable state and I don't have to fight with the package manager about who owns a given file. Those issues (and the need to generate config from those snippets) would for the most part go away, when PAM config where shipped to /usr/lib/pam.d by default, so I would kindly ask to reconsider not supporting /usr/lib/pam.d best regards, Jörg Behrmann
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
