Subject: Re: Shadow problems

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 15:48:15 +0200 (MET DST)

David Frey writes:
> M> 1) Should we change the login package to be shadow aware? Or should shadow
> M> come with its own login (that works with and without shadow password files)?
> M> Or should we use the shadow login as standard?
> 
> I'd prefer if we would be shadow's login, since it is far more cleverer than
> "standard" login (the same goes for su btw).

I talked to Guy (login maintainer) about this problem a while ago and treid
to persuade him to use ths shadow login as standard (it works without the
shadow file, too). But he prefers to keep the old one. 

Should we create a second login package? Also should we try to package the
shadow su, too (and divert teh shellutils one)?

I'm going to changes jobs next month and I'd really like to finish my work
on this problem until then. I don't know if I will have the time in my new
job.

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes                   |    _____ ________ __  ____
[email-masked] |   / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___  __________
[email-masked]                  |   \__ \/ /_  / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
[email-masked]                |  ___/ / __/ /__  __/\__, /  __/ /  (__  )
Use Debian Linux!                | /____/_/      /_/  /____/\___/_/  /____/

---

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:47:32 +0200 (MET DST)

> shadow file, too). But he prefers to keep the old one. 

If we're going to change over to shadow totally, we'll need the shadowized
login. The util-linux one is very simplistic and it would be stupid IMHO
to rewrite it when a better one is readily available (and when you have to
keep patching it up every time a new upstream util-linux is released).

Mike.
-- 
  Miquel van    | Cistron Internet Services   --    Alphen aan den Rijn.
  Smoorenburg,  | mailto:[email-masked]          http://www.cistron.nl/
[email-masked] | Tel: +31-172-419445 (Voice) 430979 (Fax) 442580 (Data)