On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
This looks much better. :-)
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
This looks much better. :-)
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
This looks much better. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:59:58 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
With that in mind, how about this patch (in conjunction with the patch to
login.conf in the original PR, which just updates a comment)?
This looks much better. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:03:10 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying "Yes, the
information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically,
that the "root" account doesn't use the "default" entry) is buried as
a throw away
Nope, I did read the docs, hence the patch to the manpage to make
it stand out more clearly. I still am of the opinion that "default" should
mean "default" for everyone. AFIK, there are no other fields in passwd
that have different interpretations/defaults depending upon the UID. This
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:03:10 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying Yes, the
information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically,
that the root account doesn't use the default entry) is buried as
a throw away comment at
Nope, I did read the docs, hence the patch to the manpage to make
it stand out more clearly. I still am of the opinion that default should
mean default for everyone. AFIK, there are no other fields in passwd
that have different interpretations/defaults depending upon the UID. This
is
Sheldon,
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 10:23:06AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying Yes, the
information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically,
that the root account doesn't use the default entry) is buried as
a
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 08:06:26AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
and let me know whether or
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 08:06:26AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
and let me know whether or
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 06:54:20PM +0400, Alexander Voropay wrote:
AFAIK, most of login_cap functions could be done via PAM subsystem.
It's sound very strange to have two different subsystem with too close
functions...
Based upon several conversations at USENIX, PAM integration is still
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
and let me know whether or not the suggested patch is correct.
Quite often, we receive
I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could
someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included)
and let me know whether or not the suggested patch is correct.
Quite often, we receive requests to improve documentation that are born
out of a failure
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 06:54:20PM +0400, Alexander Voropay wrote:
AFAIK, most of login_cap functions could be done via PAM subsystem.
It's sound very strange to have two different subsystem with too close
functions...
Based upon several conversations at USENIX, PAM integration is still
...@ubergeeks.com
To: freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org
Subject: docs/12377: doc patch for login_cap.
Number: 12377
Category: docs
Synopsis: differences of a NULL login class need amplification
Originator: Adrian Filipi-Martin
Release:FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE i386
16 matches
Mail list logo
