[PATCH] PAM Support for Busybox Login

[Rich Felker]

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 07:18:01PM +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:32:33PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 05:50:04PM +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 07:34:23AM -0700, Dave Hylands wrote:
> >> >Hi Denis,
> >> >
> >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PAM
> >> >>
> >> >> #ifdef does not detect typos in macro names. #if ENABLE_PAM is better.
> >> >
> >> >#if doesn't detect typos in macros either.  The C preprocessor treats
> >> >undefined macros as 0 (at least for the purposes of #if statements).
> >> >
> >> >There may be other reasons to prefer #if to #ifdef, but the particular
> >> >one you gave doesn't wash.
> >> 
> >> Long-term, we will not define _any_ CONFIG_* preprocessor stuff, but
> >> only the ENABLE_ to either 1 or 0, so
> >> #if ENABLE_this_or_that
> >> is the proper, modern way to go.
> >
> >Not possible for PAM though -- you can't be calling PAM functions if
> >the PAM headers don't even exist... Or do you propose to declare dummy
> >macros and functions in platform.h when PAM is disabled?
> 
> huh?
> #if ENABLE_PAM
> !=
> if (ENABLE_PAM).

Sorry, I misread.

> That's exactly the thing the preprocessor is supposed to be used for, i
> don't think adding dummies for possibly used helper libs of the kind of
> pam is a sensible thing to do..

Agree totally.

Rich