The package series are useful for more than just installation media, CD's included. I prefer to install everything except for F, KDE, KDEI, XFCE and Y. Having them in their own directory/series is extremely helpful there. I would rather not have to mess with tag files. It's just easier to unselect those series from the installer that one doesn't want and let it go.

3 members found this post helpful.

everybody has his own ideas about the packages that should compose the categories above: could you please list all the packages that you would like to see in each category?

http://ponce.cc/slackware/tagfiles/

those are actually:
- a complete clear tagfile (all SKP) for a slackware of some time ago;
- a script to generate tagfiles from a slackpkg template.
they both need some rework for current

but they are not what I asked to a.out: basically, the slackpkg templates or the tagfiles for all the kind of installations he listed above.

I ran install-new just now and got krb5...

4 members found this post helpful.

Yep, ChangeLog.txt says:
Yay!

chris

5 members found this post helpful.

Interesting. So what would a switch to add PAM and kerberos mean for day-to-day usage?

2 members found this post helpful.

It shouldn't have any impact to those who don't make use of it other than perhaps a little itsy bit of additional memory allocation at runtime. I trust that configuration file wise that our BDFL would have a rather sane default configuration that would work out-of-the-box for the vast majority of folks. But PAM + krb5 could allow those of us who want to, for example, set up a single-sign-on service for our networks to do so with "relative" ease.

5 members found this post helpful.

I blacklisted it.

I hear krb5 blacklisted you too. :-)

6 members found this post helpful.

Well, probably this blacklisting of Kerberos5 is a quite bad idea and I hope that this will not become a trend.

Because, from what I read and even Mr. Volkerding said somewhere, soon enough half of the Slackware packages will link against it and/or LinuxPAM.

Then, blacklisting the LinuxPAM and Kerberos5 packages will end with an unusable operating system.

7 members found this post helpful.

It's happening!

Truth be told, I don't really care that much either way about PAM/Kerberos, but I am happy about one less blocker for Slackware 15.

10 members found this post helpful.

Rant:

PAM: Patriot Authentication Module. Allows all Patriots (restricted to the US) to easily access your system remote and locally.

1 members found this post helpful.

I read this interesting discussion and I had the impression everyone thinks that PAM is appealing only for the enterprise.

I've recently tried to configure my laptop as a digital audio workstation: we have a band and we want to do some home recording, so nothing professional. Still I need a low latency system, which requires real-time scheduling and priority.

In slackware, with a mix of setcap and set_rlimits you can get a properly configured system with a very good performance, but I assure you that PAM would make my life far easier in managing the system.

3 members found this post helpful.

First caution - krb5 is useful even with just Samba for some setups even without PAM. So we still don't know the BDFL has finally decided to do it. It sure looks like he has but years of Slackware use should have taught everyone never to assume anything where volkerdi is concerned :-).

Second PAM is going to be way less invasive than pulseaudio was. I am sure the basic setup is going to be etc/passwd, group and shadow and necessary and sufficient. Other than a few minor tweaks to things like nsswhich.conf I doubt most people will even know its there. So I would suggest the usual reactionaries around here make your backups / take your btrfs snapshots in case you want to roll back to a pre-pam current but generally go with the flow here. Its going to save you a lot of headaches and maybe some heartaches getting onto a code path most of the rest of the Linux world is using..

3 members found this post helpful.