[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Does `@include' equivalent to `include'?


On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:03:12PM -0700, shaul Karl wrote:
>   For the record, http://bugs.debian.org/474291 claims
> that include is not equivalent to @include. Since I
> don't know what the differences are, I can't comment
> on the assertion below about the equivalence for all
> the stacks and not bringing anything new or really
> useful.

The syntax for include and @include differ.

In a /etc/pam.d file, the syntax of a line is:
    <type> <control> <module-path> <module-arguments>

  include is used as a <control>

  @include is used as a <type>

Then the semantic is also different:

    include all lines of given type from the configuration file specified as
    an argument to this control.

    parse a given file at the given location of the /etc/pam.d file


Pam-list mailing list

[Fedora Users]     [Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [Linux for the blind]     [Gimp]

Add to Google Powered by Linux