On Mon September 8 2003 21:38, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue,  9 Sep 2003 06:15:27 +0900 (JST),
>
> 	itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) said:
> > 	as a firm believer of "rough consensus and running code"
>
> Well, I don't see that there is rough consensus to import BSD auth
> as the basic layer of authentication, because many people pointed
> out that BSD auth can be implemented over PAM, and PAM can never be
> implemented over BSD auth, and also people who agreed with BSD auth
> couldn't produce any counterevidence.

I beleive there is rough consensus that you're extremely biased, have 
never once considered, commented on, or even recognized any 
compromises; and have very little (nothing new either) evidence 
supporting your crusade. 

> I have read Frank's post, but he didn't mention which way we should
> go, AFAICT.
>
> >	here's the working code for BSD auth for NetBSD.
>
> Hmmm.
> There is a PAM implementation for NetBSD, too.
> Why don't you commit the PAM implementation instead?

"instead"? Why are you so damn single-minded?

> >	now, may i commit?
>
> I think you shouldn't, unless your code is using PAM to implement
> BSD auth.
> If it implements BSD auth over PAM, I think it may be fine to
> commit it, but I guess it doesn't, does it?

Well, it's nice to know that you're going to make all the important 
decisions from now on. I'm really going to sleep better tonight 
knowing that everything will use PAM because, Soda said that It Wath 
Good.

It's called collaberative development for a reason.

-- 
Nate Hill <vugdeox@freeshell.org>