From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:52:53 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot and linux-pam? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120516135253.48a500b3@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Dmitry, Le Wed, 16 May 2012 06:32:14 -0400, Dmitry Golubovsky a ?crit : > It looks like linux-pam was never included in Buildroot, and there are > few packages* where use of pam was explicitly disabled. > > I managed to compile it with Buildroot though [1] with a number of > hacks and workarounds. I tested it (at least pam_exec) with Qingy as a > login program. > > If I provide a better quality patch, will linux-pam be accepted? If > yes, will there be any objections to (conditionally) enabling pam at > least in systemd? There will at least be no objection on my side, and in general, people are fine with adding new features to existing packages. > I am interested in both for my buildroot-based project which needs an > authrntication facility. If for some reason linux-pam cannot be > accepted, I'll keep this stuff as part of my project outside the > buildroot tree. > > Please let me know your opinion, or any suggestions how to improve the > Makefile (apart from obvious cleanups). We would definitely welcome libpam as a package. Your hacks don't look really big, and there are probably ways to make them look a bit nicer. You're apparently modifying the config.h manually, which is generated by ./configure script. Isn't it possible by passing environment variables to the ./configure script, to ensure that the problematic test gets the appropriate value? If you give a little bit more details on which problems those hacks are solving, I'm sure we can help you to come up with solutions. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com