>Anyway, the reason I prefer PAM is simple.
>1. We need PAM anyway, for compatibility with other UNIX.
>2. If we implement PAM over BSD auth, some third party PAM modules
>   may stop working, because some PAM modules may require the feature
>   that they can change the state of the caller process.
>3. Thus, we have to implement PAM as a basic feature (and implement
>   BSD auth over PAM, if BSD auth compatibility is needed), instead
>   of vice versa.

The problem is that there's these camps that seem to think that 
there's some sort of either-or issue here. The issue is NOT "choose 
PAM or BSD Auth". There *IS*NO*OPTION*FOR*PAM* on the table at all. 
NetBSD will *NEVER* have PAM, unless someone steps forward to 
implement it. *NOWHERE* in this thread has a single person done that. 
So PAM is absolutely, totally irrelevant in this discussion. Throw it 
out the window, ignore it completely. The ONLY question is...would 
BSD Auth benefit enough people to warrant inclusion. I think that 
that has already been established to be true.

BTW, I have no vested interest in either one. I will NOT be doing any 
work on either one. I will NOT be using either one.

But this thread is totally ludicrous in the absurd directions that 
people are trying to go with it.

Seebs, I'm with Chuck. Create your repository, do some of the work, 
let others see and play with it. Words in emails won't get anything 
done. When you've got code for the players to look at, then ideas can 
be thrown around wrt abstraction to fit "the TNF goals" and it will 
begin to take shape towards inclusion. VaporWare is VaporWare until 
it's implemented (which both are on NetBSD ATM).

Just my opinion,
Mike
-- 
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.