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
