[Pam-developers] Open tickets

Hi, after cleaning up the ticket system and fixes the minor documentation issues, we still have some open tickets: #9 [PATCH] Allow pam_lastlog to write to utmp as an option => I suggest to reject that. That's more academic and not needed. #20 compilation warnings => I suggest to ignore the last warnings #24 [PATCH] pam_env: Expand @{HOME} and @{SHELL} => Any opinion about this? If you all think we should do it, I would look at the patch. #26 Use more fail safe method of indicating success from unix_chkpwd => Tomas, will you look at this? #28 Allow module to put the tty to echo off mode via conversation function => Any volunteer for this one? #29 pam_env documentation update => the patch in this form is unuseable, I think most docu is harder to understand then currently. But some changes could be usefull. #30 Support for skipping to labels instead of numbers of rules. => I would suggest to reject this. Or any volunteer to implement this? But I think this would not make the whole stuff better. #34 support alternative "vendor configuration" files as fallback to /etc => This are two bugs in one 1. I disagree that modules should ignore that they are used but not configured. This will only be confusing and a source for errors. 2. I don't like this /usr/lib/pam.d/ concept. #37 Wrong SELinux AV used in pam_rootok? => Tomas, do you know more about this? #39 [PATCH] doc: pam_access docs are incomplete/misleading => the patch looks Ok for me. #40 expose_auth doesnt work with pam_exec when user does not exist => I don't understand why this should not work by looking at the code. Looks more like a stacking issue, need to dig deeper into this. Your comments? Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Senior Architect SLES & Common Code Base SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)