shadow package history
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Ionut Biru <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> i wanted to fix FS#16802 which is about newusers and chpasswd utilities from
> shadow. Even the fix is available in bugtracker, i'm not quite sure if we
> have this bug because something got changed upstream.
> I've found out that we are using a custom default pam module for about all
> except one and that in shadow source they provide in etc/pam.d some
> I don't know the history of the arch package and why we are using custom
> configs and i've found that any other distribution out there doesn't have
> this bug that we have. So my worries are that we kinda package shadow very
> So anyone know why we are using that custom config? Anyone know how to fix
> shadow? Personally i don't know a thing about it.
I don't think there's any specific reason beyond "that's how we did it
in the past". What are the pros and cons to getting rid of this custom