Joerg Barfurth wrote:
> Darren J Moffat schrieb:
>> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> 
> 
>>> What will they need to do?   (For some reason, the community xdm
>>> & gdm sources passes the X display as the PAM_TTY value, so we'd
>>> either need to change them or add :0 to /etc/securetty.  From
>>> looking at the dtlogin code, it appears to pass /dev/console as
>>> PAM_TTY.)
>>
>> Hmn I wonder how Linux and BSD distros that use gdm deal with this
>> one.   From what I remember of gdm it has its own explicit root
>> login check, is that still true ?
>>
>> Since the PAM item is called PAM_TTY it seems strange to pass
>> anything other than a TTY device name in there. 
> 
> Linux-PAM has officially (re)defined it that way - and of course that is 
> what most community developers develop against:

Embrase and extend isn't this exactly what so many community people
hate about what a certain US based non UNIX company does ?

The X/Open spec for PAM doesn't define it that way best I can remember.

Just because Linux-PAM did it like that doesn't make it right and 
doesn't mean I'm going to blindly follow it either.

-- 
Darren J Moffat

Reply via email to