You dreamed it all. Your vote will suddenly come out of the shower some time next year.

1 members found this post helpful.

Do I want a layer complexity that I haven't needed in 15 years, just so 0.001% of PAM loving Slackware users don't have to install it?


NO.

The NO votes don't mean anything because the 100,000 Slackware users all around the world are not going to see this and vote. So what ever the YES count is, divide by 100,000 and that's you're result.

Yet another typical kikinovak poll. He asks a poll question and then argues with every one who disagrees with him. This is tiring.

5 members found this post helpful.

I am new here. I don't want to get in the middle of anything. That said, how likely is it that this poll will result in a PAM module being added to the base install? What are the requirements for this to happen? I've been following Slackware for a long time and I've always known things to be pretty much up to The Man.

I still stand by my position of "no".

PAM is and should be optional and unless there is a great dire need for it across the spread spectrum of users, not just those doing corporate, and sorry if this sounds offense, but that's a minority of users of Slackware, it should be made and kept optional.

Slackbuilds.org could be used to keep it seperate and have detailed instructions on what all does need rebuilding, which should be easy enough, to distribute it, but, and honestly the way I see it, if you really do need it, and have the ability to do so, create a repository on github, GoogleCode, etc. and get it up on Slackpkg+, and get PAMified alternate packages like openssh-pam-$VERSION-x86_64-1.txz created. This has been mentioned numerous times only to be met with willful ignorance.

To me also, it's just one more thing that could get broken by a user or a package (God forbid) that could screw something up, and leave the system unuseable.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hey, what do you know, I actually have pam installed; got it back when test-driving wayland.

This is a relevant thread.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...am-4175483168/

I would like - if someone is willing - to have a really clear elaboration as to why PAM is needed in a base install. Something that has multiple paragraphs. I figure that's the least to ask for when talking about adding something to the best linux distro.

I feel that making a slackbuild or something like it would be somewhat the same amount of effort as doing a base integration. Am I off base here?

Something to think about is would the specific PAM include also require a systemd include down the line? If so, I am not sure it's worthwhile.

@Moderator: please count coldbeer's "NO" vote double or triple, so we can all still be friends.

Long answer: no.

I have no idea what these packages are for, so I can't comment on why there is PAM included. Perhaps it has a reason, perhaps not.

But I can tell you this: For authenticating Linux users against LDAP all you need is nss-pam-ldapd (there is a SlackBuilds package). Setup is as simple as described here:

http://arthurdejong.org/nss-pam-ldapd/setup

Just ignore everything PAM-related on that page, because the SlackBuilds package disables PAM-support anyway.

In my company desktop users as well as Exim authenticate against LDAP while Samba provides an NT-domain . Same for Kolab's (still version 2) daemons (Postfix, Cyrus, Apache). All machines are running Slackware, completely without PAM.

Mike

3 members found this post helpful.

The nss-pam-ldapd documentation is a bit laconic. I tried to get some more details a while ago, but couldn't seem to find any.

Do you have any more specific documentation (notes, etc.) on the setup you use? I really would like nothing more than to stand corrected on this, as I'm currently using NIS for authentication, which is far from ideal.

Cheers,

Niki

/etc/nslcd.conf:
/etc/nsswitch.conf:
How is that different than NIS.

Even if you add ssl it will still be like NIS over IPSEC. Basically a PITA. No surprise no one uses it till long ago.


Oh boy


Cheers

1 members found this post helpful.

Forgive me for not entirely believing that long answer. /s Seeing as systemd has uefi boot insanity going on, of all things, I cannot think this impossible. Everything including Gnome seems to be absorbed. Which PAM system is being suggested?

I guess my point is, wait for the systemd storm to blow over before things are added to the base install.

Looks like you smoked a bad weed pal


Cheers

1 members found this post helpful.

I'll let Pat decide if Pam gets added to Slackware. I can definitely understand kikinovak's wish to have it included. I'm fine if Pat decides to include it.