On Wednesday 16 July 2008 18:38:44 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> for those as puzzled as myself by this odd exchange, it seems to be in
> reference to:
>
> 	BR: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147790
> 	Mailing list thread: http://tinyurl.com/59wy4v
>
> i'm not sure what the resolution is: the maintainer, Ossi, objects to the
> patch's approach (thinks it should be in PAM?); the submitter suggests that
> many distros will end up shipping kdm with this patch anyways, and that kdm
> is the correct integration point.

From reading through the bug report, Ossi seems to be saying he'd consider the 
patch if the integration was done in a similar manner to how the PAM 
integration is done.  His comment at the end was "if you are touching 
session.c, you are doing something wrong".

A quick grep shows that every call to a pam function is done in client.c.  So 
I guess that's where he wants all the ck_* functions that the patch places in 
session.c to reside.

Alex


-- 
KDE: http://www.kde.org
Ubuntu/Kubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.org http://www.kubuntu.org