On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 15:07 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:

> Sounds good to me, trivial patch to do this.. Also, I assume you will
> change the previous patch for passwd.c to the new function.

Shouldn't we also remove checkPasswdAccess from the header? Otherwise what's the point?

I should note this approach addresses the consistency and namespacing from the developer point of view, but doesn't address possible symbol collisions. Possibly that could wait until a soname bump, just thought I'd point it out.

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.



application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part