sean at mcneil.com sean at mcneil.com
Thu Dec 4 14:28:03 PST 2003

This is part of a bigger issue.  It boils down as to whether FreeBSD should
support LDAP and how.  This is one reason why the base system is moving to
dynamic libraries vs. static.

The question is, do we want xscreensaver to work?  PAM is becoming a defacto
standard and to not support it seems counter-productive.  xscreensaver will
check your installation to see if you have PAM.  If you do, then it will
compile it in.  Unless, of course, you disable it.

I would love to hear the reasoning as to why PAM should not be supported.  I'm
sure you have some misgivings you haven't explained.


Quoting Jeremy Messenger <mezz7 at cox.net>:

> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:23:30 -0800, Sean McNeil <sean at mcneil.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Can we remove the --without-pam from xscreensaver and xscreensaver-gnome
> > now?  It cripples systems using LDAP.
> Does they build with pam support/enable by default? If yes, then I 
> disagree for to remove the --without-pam. I only will support to add the 
> WITH_PAM define, but by default the pam should be disable.
> Cheers,
> Mezz
> > Thanks,
> > Sean
> -- 
> bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the freebsd-gnome mailing list