Subject: Re: PAM enabled by default in packages that support it?
To: Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/25/2005 14:18:08
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Johnny Lam wrote:
> > This is fine, so long as the packages in question include pam.buildlink3.mk
> > and do *not* turn on the support if PAM_TYPE ends up as "none" (for OS's not
> > supporting one of the pkgsrc-supplied PAM packages).
> pam.buildlink3.mk is meant to be included if you really want PAM. If the
> package can conditionally use PAM, then the package should be made to support
> "PAM" in PKG_OPTIONS, and to include pam.buildlink3.mk if it is there. If
> PAM_TYPE takes the value "none", then it causes package builds to fail by
I didn't suggest setting PAM_TYPE to "none"; rather, I'm taking the
perspective of other smoke-if-you've-got-'em bl3 files that *return* "none"
if the desired feature is unavailable. Think pthread.buildlink3.mk without
the "require" option being set before inclusion.
That way you can always include pam.buildlink3.mk without
OS-conditionalizing a crapload of packages, and conditionalize the package
on the *return value* "none" to indicate no PAM is available and should be
disabled in the package.
There's no other sane way, as I see it, to turn on PAM by default --
conditionalizing by OS in lots of package is just Wrong.
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>