4 ms·

That's okay. Sooner or later they'll get around to integrating ssh into systemd to fix this. /joking I hope.

• yarrel 10y ago
  You know it's going to happen.
• wmf 10y ago
  I hope they replace PAM first; I've never had a good experience with it.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • d33 10y ago
    What makes you think they'd do a good job?
    • Spivak 10y ago
      PAM behind the scenes seems fine, it's the interface that's clunky and prone to error. Imagine a world where a PAM would come with a file /etc/systemd/system/sssd.pam which specified all of its dependencies, what services it should be installed in, and uses Before= and After= to determine its position. Enabling SSS auth would be as simple as systemctl enable sssd.pam. And since sssd.pam would depend on sssd.service if sssd.service fails for some reason the pam module could be disabled to keep the junk out of your logs.
• pdkl95 10y ago
  Give it time; they're busy with "systemd-mount" http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Systemd-Mount http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Systemd-M...
  • colemickens 10y ago
    Though I'm sure everyone is aware, `systemd-mount` is merely a tool that generates systemd mount units, which have been around for a while and are a helpful concept for building dependencies between services and the mounts they depend upon.
    • subway 10y ago
      Not to nitpick, but I'm fairly certain that when using mount units, systemd is directly calling mount(2), eschewing use of mount(8). edit: I also want to say until somewhat recently, systemd's mount units were just a wrapper around mount(8), but could be completely mistaken.
      • simcop2387 10y ago
        Correct, and these are still wrappers around mount(2). The whole idea with systemd-mount seems to be a way to auto-generate the units based on some set of policies.