On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
# 
# This doesn't mean we plan on repeating the mistakes we think other PAM
# implementations make.

Hmm... I missed that note earlier.

What does this mean for some commercial PAM module supplier?  Does it
mean they'll likely have to provide NetBSD-specific object modules?

(Nobody commented on my earlier related question about whether existing
implementations today could share object modules between identical CPUs
running a different underlying OS and libc, etc.  I doubt it, but I may
be wrong.)

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;           <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>