[Pkg-shadow-devel] Re: {user,group}{add,mod,del} now PAMified

[Christian Perrier]

> Anyway, not my package; if my arguments aren't persuasive, I'm sure that
> I'll survive having a few more files under /etc/pam.d, I just don't think
> it's a very good design choice.


As an attempt to conclude this discussion, where I think Steve made
his point clear and we actually didn't give very convincing arguments
to keep this PAM stuff, I'll say that this is currently balanced.

So, at this moment, what is currently deciding me is "upstream
compliance". If we assume that upstream has made this choice, I tend
to avoid us (Debian) diverging from it on that matter.

We should at least try to convince Tomasz to use only one PAM service
name for these utilities, unless he's finally convinced by Steve's
arguments and thus drops PAM from these parts of code.

Acceptable compromise? :-)