Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap
From: Ruslan Ermilov (ru_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 05/23/03
- Previous message: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- In reply to: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Next in thread: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Reply: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:28:48 +0300 To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:24:34AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> writes:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:45:44AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > > Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> writes:
> > > > I'm unfamiliar with ["binding"]. What's it do?
> > > It behaves like "sufficient" should, i.e. failure is not ignored.
> > You mean, _last_ failure is not ignored?
>
> I don't understand the question.
>
In a chain with mutiple "binding" modules, only the _last_
failure gets ignored? Meaning, if some other module succeeds,
override the failure status, right?
Cheers,
-- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- In reply to: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Next in thread: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Reply: Dag-Erling Smorgrav: "Re: 5.1 beta2 still in trouble with pam_ldap"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|