I tried to launch chromium-build-76129. But it fails at:
As chromium will become chrome eventually, is that means it's hard to use chrome(or chromium) in the future?

P.S. I don't think I dare to compile chromium from scratch. The only way I use chrome/chromium is using the official prebuilds.

What is the output of the following?

0 members found this post helpful.

Somewhere else =)

1 members found this post helpful.

I came across the same problem when compiling chromium a little while ago. Slackbuilds.org don't want to have pam in the repo. So I have made a slackbuild for pam which allows chromium to build.

After building chromium pam can and should be uninstalled as it will affect lots of other things that you build after it.

http://www.dawoodfall.net/slackbuilds/13.1/Linux-PAM/

There's nothing hard about building chromium from scratch - just use the slackbuild from slackbuilds.org.

IIRC, building chromium will require Gigas of disk and hours of time. So I don't want to build it. As it will change rapidly, the chromium you build today may be out-of-date tomorrow. So IMHO, building chromium by myself is just a waste of time.

Besides, I don't know how to do PAM right. I don't know what will happen when chrome run on a non-functioning PAM... ;(

Ok, I went off of experience in linux. Never used slackware, but my first post is where I would normally start. Do you mind please telling me where I went wrong by asking what I did? Thanks,

Josh

Wrong is probably the incorrect term to use with respect to your original post. That said: this is the Slackware sub-forum and Slackware does not use PAM in any way shape of form. Thus your fubar was responding to a post on the Slackware forum when not knowing the mechanics of the Slackware distribution.

mRgOBLIN, a frequent poster and respected source of Slackware specific solutions, succinctly stated what is obvious to those here.

ppd

1 members found this post helpful.

Looks like you're getting a bit offensive, no?

Just in the fun... Yes, I did my research, and all that good stuff. I just didn't know that Slackware doesn't use PAM. But this thread got me thinking even though it's linux, and I started to get more into reading about it. Looks like I'm installing Slackware on something

Cheers man and thanks for being arrogant guys, finally got me to download slack

Josh

1 members found this post helpful.

Hello there.

I am getting back to work (and other stuff) and then I tried to build the latest chromium version. To my surprise now it needs PAM (oh my!) The latest build I could come up without PAM (before going on vacation) was 11.0.658.1.

I am trying to talk to the Chromium guys (IRC and stuff) to see if we can compile it without pam. dive's approach seems to "solve" the problem, but it's not elegant, right?

Please, dive, take on offense. We both know that's not the slackware way to do things. Anyway, have you had any problems with chromium after you did that? (building and installing PAM, then building chromium, then uninstalling pam)

It's not nice, but if that is THE ONLY WAY TO FLY, then I can change my chromium.SlackBuild so that it will make all that automatic. But I still see that as non-elegant

I did ask in #chromium about this and got absolutely no response. You may have better luck than me, or know other places to ask.

Yeah I agree having a --with-pam=no flag would be the ideal solution and if you can push for that it would great.

At the end of the day I can build chromium against pam on my build box, and then it will work fine _without_ having pam installed on the target box(en). It may not be as elegant as a no pam flag, but it works fine.

I've not had any problems using chromium like this at all (version 11.0.677.0 (0) right now).

To the OP: building chromium can take a time and need some spare space to build, but by using kenjiro's slackbuild it is very easy and no trouble at all. All you need do is grab the relevant source from buildbot and edit the version in the slackbuild.

libpam is for ChromiumOS, since they are using Chrome as a login manager.

I think slackbuilds.org will refuse to host that if that's what you are planning. I already have asked about submitting my pam slackbuild and they don't want pam in any way, shape or form. I think the best solution is to push upstream for a --with-pam=no type flag.

That I do not get. Slackware doesn't want PAM in the official distro, which is fine. But for those who may want to use it or need it why make it harder by refusing to have it in the repository for 3rd party software?

What difference does it make if a slackbuild is available or not? By refusing a slackbuild they are basically deciding what software people should or should not use, which is something I don't really agree with....but whatever.

There's an age-old tradition of hating PAM in Slakcware, but not long ago, PatV stated that it wasn't so bad as it used to be. Maybe softening up the troops for a big turn around later... and then PAM will be the greatest thing since HAL or udev.

0 members found this post helpful.

Rallying the troops in such a fashion is only required when such software becomes impossible or unreasonable to exclude. That being said they did seem to go to great lengths with polkit-1 to continue PAM's absence with newer KDE builds...

1 members found this post helpful.