--TmwHKJoIRFM7Mu/A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2005.08.24 14:36:26 +0000, John Nemeth wrote:
| On Jan 14,  4:49pm, Rui Paulo wrote:
| } On 2005.08.24 13:28:30 +0000, John Nemeth wrote:
| } | On Jan 14, 10:01am, Rui Paulo wrote:
| } | } On 2005.08.24 16:18:25 +0000, Zafer Aydogan wrote:
| } | } | I wonder why lib/30923 is still open in 3.99.8
| } | } | A patch was provided.
| } | } | This should be pulled up to 2.1, where the same problem is far mo=
re e=3D
| } xplicit
| } | } | and tells me that root login is refused for root, when supplied w=
ith =3D
| } the
| } | } | correct root passwort.
| } | }=3D20
| } | } 2.1 doesn't have PAM. What about 3.0_BETA ?
| } |=3D20
| } |      PAM went in before the branch, so 3.0 will have it.
| }=20
| } I was not asking if 3.0_BETA has PAM, I was asking if it has the proble=
m.
|=20
|      Since neither of the bugs in question have been fixed in -current,
| they won't be fixed on any branches.

Ok. I guess I was confused by the setence "I wonder why lib/30923 is still
open in 3.99.8"

		-- Rui Paulo

--TmwHKJoIRFM7Mu/A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDDOkXZPqyxs9FH4QRAlIuAJ95UxqKTG+nuDxxzN/EfsPpBCCh2QCgshFb
HslzVRe+B8MqevYIS8GnEzQ=
=mwxn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--TmwHKJoIRFM7Mu/A--