pam 0.99

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 06:52:05PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 08:14:47AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > 2) convince PAM upstream to take it
> > 
> > If they take it, we don't have to patch in the future, and if they have a
> > compelling reason for why it is wrong/evil, we can drop it in the future.
> 
> We should try #2 first.  I think we should avoid having to maintain it
> another 5 years if upstream doesn't want it for some reason.

Okay, done:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pam-list/2007-September/msg00016.html

-- 
Kees Cook
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20070910/2c744e2b/attachment.pgp