Just a note:
Dropline's PAM packages can be installed without GNOME itself. I've posted a link to it in the LinuxQuestions forums a few times.:
One of the main reasons why I like our PAM implementation is because you can benefit from some of the Redhat modules. In the case of things like gnome-volume-manager, this is a requirement so that it can determine who has console ownership, and you can even set up rules with pam_console to give access of devices to only the person logged into the local system.
Of course, these are not required if you just need PAM to build certain apps that require it in its most basic form, but I really think that PAM needs a bit more TLC than most pieces of software (it may seem crazy, but our PAM build script is 192 lines), and some of these tweaks really improve things.
With DLG 2.16.0's release (which is basically done, but we're waiting for Slackware 11.0's release), I've posted some much improved pam-0.99.6.2 packs (over our 2.14 packs) at the Dropline forum link mentioned above.
Just a note, in observation of your FAQ... The /etc/pam.conf file is often considered to be depreciated. Most newer implementations use /etc/pam.d/ instead, where individual config files are placed within that directory. It's still used by PAM, but only in the case that /etc/pam.d/ doesn't exist. It just makes more sense if you are going to pack up pam-aware applications that include configuration files, and you don't want to have to modify a single legacy pam.conf to add each app.
I'm a bit curious about the suggestion in your FAQ about rebuilding util-linux. I'm not sure that there is any real benefit of pamifying it. Correct me if I am wrong though. Since Slackware doesn't use util-linux the same way some vendors do, a lot of the tools exist in other packages. E.g., /bin/login, chfn, or chsh, is in Shadow rather than util-linux (as many distributions, such as like Fedora, like to do things). I don't really see the benefit of a pam-ified util-linux on Slackware.
Another thing... I noticed a mention of PAM "having a history of vulnerabilities" in your FAQ, but I don't really believe that is the case. PAM itself has proven to be quite secure over the years (note that Secunia's only advisory is from 2003): http://secunia.com/product/1701/?task=statistics
. The real offenders haven't been in PAM itself, but have been in third-party modules, like pam_ldap, which aren't included in PAM proper. PAM and "security problems" are an unfortunate myth that some Slackware users believe, but a good PAM implementation and a knowledgable system administrator can provide a powerful tool that improves security on Slackware.