Pavel Herrmann ha scritto: > Please don't think I don't appreciate your work on pam_fprint, but isn't > it better to make patches against latest GIT version? Well, it really should. But I still have to learn to use GIT :-( Making it work with multiple fingers was a high priority work, for me. Now I can look at GIT to send another patch, maybe w/ some extra cleanup (I left all the old code in place, "just in case"). If others are interested, I can refiff against latest git, but if I'm the only one interested...
Anyway, before proceeding, I'd like feedback on some assumptions I made: 1) it's ok that, if pam requires authenticating w/ X>Y prints and user enrolled just Y prints (w/ available readers), access is DENIED 2) any user could have prints enrolled from multiple readers 3) it is OK *not* to short-circuit a print recognition (so if X prints are required, X prints are scanned, even if the first fails) 4) it's OK to only return PAM_SUCCESS and PAM_AUTH_ERR (no more PAM_AUTHINFO_UNAVAIL) 5) (obvious) there are no objections to the proposed options (and no evident bugs, like in the first proposed patch) Another thing I'd like to implement is handling a "fixed fingers list" so that different apps can require different fingers to be scanned. This could remove one implication (nfingers => randomlist), but adds another (len(flist) >= nfingers, and if strictly greater the others are chosen at random). BYtE, Diego. _______________________________________________ fprint mailing list fprint@reactivated.net http://lists.reactivated.net/mailman/listinfo/fprint
