Re: PAM still a goal for slink?
Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> > If we decide to bump the soname, we could move the modules at the same
> > time, and both versions could coexist for a time. As far as I know,
> > only ppp-pam currently uses the PAM library.
> I think we should bump the soname.
> Not doing so causes problems.
> RedHat can bump theirs painlessly to achieve compatibility.
If we bump a pre-1.0 version to a soname of libpam.so.1, Red Hat might
not be entirely happy with not having a soname which matches the
program version when PAM 1.0 comes out.
> The worst thing that could result from RH doing this being that you
> might have the same library with 2 sonames under RH, and thus waste a little
> disk and memory until the transition is complete.
So what I see is: bump the soname and keep the libraries in /usr.
Bump it to 1 or to 0.65? (I like 0.65 or 0a so that we can
synchronize when version 1.0 comes out.
The current Red Hat ships with version 0.64 of libpam. The latest
version on the main PAM ftp site seems to be 0.57, but versions 0.59
through 0.65 appear in a directory named "pre".
I'm going to ask on the PAM mailing list about binary compatibility and
whether 0.65 will be consistent with the 1.0 release.
Klee, are you still maintaining PAM?
Steve
dunham@debian.org
Reply to: