On St, 2014-09-03 at 18:07 +0400, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:33:57PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
[...]
> Well at least the pam module name cannot be /.so but grantor=/ could be
> confusing as well. I'll stick with the original grantor=? as supporting
> module named ?.so is something we do not really have to :).
Well, I've never had a module named ?.so before, but I have it now,
and it works perfectly well. :)
But should it? What if we rejected such module name explicitly? Would
you accept that?
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)