I was told that @include directive is equivalent to
a plain include directive. I can't find the
documentation for @include. Can one use both @include
and include at the same time? Please document @include
or better, in my opinion, replace it with plain
include.

It is not.

That is a bug that should be fixed.

Yes, though I see no reason to use the 'include' syntaxt instead of
@include.

I won't be doing the latter, no.

1. The following can be useful to document the
@include directive. It was noted that one can use
include and @include directives at the same
configuration file. It is taken from
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pam-list/2008-April/msg00010.html

--- Nicolas François wrote:

2. I think that @include obeys to the least expected
surprise rule. I am reading the administrator pam
guide. Even though the guide documents the include
directive correctly, unless I had written this reply I
would remember that the semantics of include is
actually the semantics of @include. Obviously, if I
had seen a correct configuration file that someone
else wrote, I might have notice that contrary to my
expectations, include is used as a <control> and not
as a <type>. However if I had tried to wrote a
configuration file from scratch, I might have wrote a
line with include as a <type>.
3. In order to better emphasize and differentiate
@include from include to the occasional reader,
perhaps one of the two should have renamed source?

Sam, Kees,

Given that upstream supports a syntax that does satisfy our needs, should we
switch the recommendation to 'include' instead of '@include' after all, so
we can deprecate @include and eventually drop one of the patches in our
delta with upstream?  The last time I spoke with upstream about this one,
the conclusion was that only one syntax was needed and Debian should switch
to the one upstream implements.

This would obviously be a long transition, since we will need to coordinate
with all packages shipping /etc/pam.d/ files, but it would be
straightforward... and I can't see any compelling reason to continue to use
a syntax that differs from upstream's.

Good Morning,

See attached request for quotation.
Revert the quote as per spreadsheet.

Best Regards,

Richard