Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> 
> 
>>Now that PAM is in the base system, seems like packages that support PAM
>>should have that support enabled by default, yes?
> 
> 
> 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 design.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>