LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2015, 11:35 AM   #211
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 6,450
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Are you seriously telling other people that they should blame ivandi for not obeying your made up rules with providing his work in a format that is not compatible with a non-standard tool?
Oh so then please explain the full criteria for getting packages added to slackpkg+ since you have stuff out on slackpkg+ yourself then. Last I checked, it was not a tool, but an add-on to the standard tool to extend its capabilities.
 
Old 10-13-2015, 11:41 AM   #212
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,314

Rep: Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Packages could be available on slackpkg+ if the authors would get their act together and release standardized Slackbuild scripts with proper licenses, gpg keys, and binary packages with proper tags and labels. We have one developer of PAM packages who absolutely refuses to do this, so blame that person for their own lack of following the rules to get packages out for not making them publicly available over the standard channels.
Wow... so the fact that ivandi (you didn't name him, but you might as well have done it with how you were throwing him under the bus) doesn't want to use his slackbuild scripts to put out something capable of being able to be used by slackpkg+, he doesn't have his act together? He took the time to get PAM working on his system (no small feat), then he creates slackbuild packages so he can replicate it easily, then he makes them available to the public. He doesn't owe us anything, and for those users who use his work (and others like me who may not use it, but are appreciative for what he is doing), they should be thankful! Also, he freely admits he doesn't care about the licenses of his slackbuild scripts, so if you desire the packages to be available to slackpkg+, why don't you take his scripts, compile packages, and then make them available to slackpkg+? Throw it under your slackworks stuff. You also love to suggest SBo take it on, even when the SBo maintainers state it goes beyond the scope of their project (check the bottom page of their submission guidelines). If you want it so bad, maybe you should work towards getting it available in Slackware rather than trying to get everyone else to do it.

As I've said before, I don't really care if PAM gets added or not. I have no use for it, but from what others have said, the impact for us users who won't use it will be minimal. However, these threads show the sad side of LQ. There ends up being hostility, put downs, and bickering. As I said before, Pat and team know that some people want PAM, and they probably have a good idea of how it will impact Slackware itself if it does get implemented. And it's probably not an "if" it gets implemented, but "when", based on looking at the state of software and the way it's headed. But we're likely way too far along in the development process for this to be added to the next version (14.2). So can we cool down and leave this be? At least until the next dev cycle starts up?
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-13-2015, 11:47 AM   #213
a4z
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,727

Rep: Reputation: 741Reputation: 741Reputation: 741Reputation: 741Reputation: 741Reputation: 741Reputation: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by orbea View Post
I would notice if pam was added, I would also go out of my way to remove it assuming no one better qualified beat me to it. That said it would be far easier to maintain packages that would add pam as a few already are doing than it would be to maintain packages to remove pam. If you really want pam, then I would personally suggest you take charge of your own system and do it yourself or find another distro where the devs are more willing to spoon feed you like say ubuntu.
ok, so tell us what would make problems if you have PAM onboard so that you have to remove it?
and thanks for the prove that you follow the concept and argue with the 'do it yourself' but 0 technical reason
do you also spent most of your time on Mac & Co?
 
Old 10-13-2015, 11:55 AM   #214
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Oh so then please explain the full criteria for getting packages added to slackpkg+ since you have stuff out on slackpkg+ yourself then. Last I checked, it was not a tool, but an add-on to the standard tool to extend its capabilities.
Being an add-on for a standard tool does in no way make it a standard tool too. Unless it is part of the Slackware repo it can't by definition be a Slackware standard. The standard way to install packages on Slackware that are not in the repo is still provided by pkgtools.
Also, no one gets packages added to slackpkg+, there are only people out there that kindly offer their personal work in slackpkg+ compatible repos (and some of them are added to the slackpkg+ config file by default), but no rule that you have to do so exists. So, telling people to blame a person that are not following the rule (which doesn't exist) to offer their personal work in such a compatible repo is seriously out of the line, you are not entitled to that in any way or form. Of course, since it is all open source, you could just go ahead and create such a repo with ivandi's packages if you want to have such a repo, instead of blaming people that do all the work, but in a format you don't like.

Last edited by TobiSGD; 10-13-2015 at 11:57 AM.
 
Old 10-13-2015, 11:56 AM   #215
Didier Spaier
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slint64-14.2.1.2 on Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Posts: 9,473

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The more posts go in this thread, the less chances they have to influence Pat's decision, I think.

Maybe we could take a break and resume this interesting discussion when Slackware 14.2 will have been released?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-13-2015, 12:00 PM   #216
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 6,450
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030
You do realize that because Slackware doesn't enforce updates to packages and dependencies that anyone updating packages could update shadow or Linux-PAM without updating the dependency and effectively break their system since the wrong shared library linked against Linux-PAM would not be in the system.

I'm not trying to present worst case scenario, but from time to time, things have happened in -Current requiring several packages be rebuilt to update dependencies or resolve incorrect dependencies before Patrick finds them and gets them fixed. Because PAM creates such a wide web of dependencies, without any way to enforce dependency packages, PAM could pose a problem. To the informed, it might be without a problem, but there are people who use -Current as a source of updates to stable releases to fix problems or resolve security issues from the developer, not just the distribution.

Yes Tobi, it is open source so by all means nobody has to lift a finger, or use Slackware.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 10-13-2015 at 12:05 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-13-2015, 12:07 PM   #217
Smokey_justme
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 534

Rep: Reputation: 203Reputation: 203Reputation: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by orbea View Post
I would notice if pam was added, I would also go out of my way to remove it assuming no one better qualified beat me to it. That said it would be far easier to maintain packages that would add pam as a few already are doing than it would be to maintain packages to remove pam. If you really want pam, then I would personally suggest you take charge of your own system and do it yourself or find another distro where the devs are more willing to spoon feed you like say ubuntu.
Yes, 10 years ago you probably would have noticed this... But now!? It's not exactly cutting-edge software... It's also not some systemd or gnome3 stuff that changes from day to day and gives you massive headaches and breaks stuff from major update to another... There is no reason you would ever need to touch any pam configuration files for day to day desktop or single-server setups.. And even if you would have to (but you don't).. welcome to Slackware, the system where you need to create a simple user, install usable fonts and compile most software to even have a usable desktop.. So give me a f*cking break and get over you 15-years old argument of not having pam..

Btw, a fact that rarely gets mentioned but it should is that most software that offers no-pam alternatives don't really test that non-pam alternative... Really, believe it or not most developers are not Slackware-friendly and mostly offer non-pam alternatives for compatibility, testing or courtesy reasons (e.g. sddm) and that code can actually have security flaws in it that nobody will test, fix or double-check (on the bright-side, nobody really gives a damn about cracking such system either).. So let's all come down from the damn piedestal we build in our mind about Slackware and see that sometimes change is good and can provide additional functionality and security..
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-13-2015, 12:08 PM   #218
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867Reputation: 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
You do realize that because Slackware doesn't enforce updates to packages and dependencies that anyone updating packages could update shadow or Linux-PAM without updating the dependency and effectively break their system since the wrong shared library linked against Linux-PAM would not be in the system.

I'm not trying to present worst case scenario, but from time to time, things have happened in -Current requiring several packages be rebuilt to update dependencies or resolve incorrect dependencies before Patrick finds them and gets them fixed. Because PAM creates such a wide web of dependencies, without any way to enforce dependency packages, PAM could pose a problem. To the informed, it might be without a problem, but there are people who use -Current as a source of updates to stable releases to fix problems or resolve security issues from the developer, not just the distribution.
So your argument is that PAM shouldn't be in Slackware because people might run into problems when mixing the stable version with -current? Shouldn't ncurses be removed in that case also, since upgrading ncurses with a package from current in a stable installation may break programs that have ncurses as dependency and many packages have a dependency on ncurses (read: a wide web of dependencies)?
Quote:
*sarcasm* Yes, let's force software down people's throats... as if we don't have enough of that already in GNU/Linux.
Won't comment on that, everyone with half a brain is seeing where you try to go with that.
 
Old 10-13-2015, 12:12 PM   #219
Didier Spaier
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slint64-14.2.1.2 on Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Posts: 9,473

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
You do realize that because Slackware doesn't enforce updates to packages and dependencies that anyone updating packages could update shadow or Linux-PAM without updating the dependency and effectively break their system since the wrong shared library linked against Linux-PAM would not be in the system.

I'm not trying to present worst case scenario, but from time to time, things have happened in -Current requiring several packages be rebuilt to update dependencies or resolve incorrect dependencies before Patrick finds them and gets them fixed. Because PAM creates such a wide web of dependencies, without any way to enforce dependency packages, PAM could pose a problem. To the informed, it might be without a problem, but there are people who use -Current as a source of updates to stable releases to fix problems or resolve security issues from the developer, not just the distribution.

*sarcasm* Yes, let's force software down people's throats... as if we don't have enough of that already in GNU/Linux.
You lost me.
  • PAM is not in -current (or I need better glasses).
  • People using third party packages, wherever they come from, are responsible of maintaining their system's consistency.
  • The same applies to people who use -current as a source of update.
So, what is your point here[1]? Yes, this is a genuine question.

[1]In my native language I would have said "oł voulez-vous en venir?"

Last edited by Didier Spaier; 10-13-2015 at 12:14 PM.
 
Old 10-13-2015, 12:26 PM   #220
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 6,450
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030
When you update a dependency of software, packages that depend on that package must be rebuilt to use the newer library. This means if you want newer OpenSSH, and you have a newer OpenSSL and newer Linux-PAM, you not only need OpenSSL and Linux-PAM, but now you need shadow, sudo, etc. because they were using the older PAM library and will need these updated as well, and slackpkg does NOT enforce updates to dependencies and packages reliant upon them.

Yes, PAM is a good idea, it may be the best damn idea since Colombian Supreme coffee by Juan Valdez, but Slackware does not have any way or means to force updates to software dependencies and packages reliant upon them. PAM is a problem, and it's not a small problem like people think it is.

And this is the EXACT reasoning behind dropping it in SBO and letting people decide for themselves.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 10-13-2015 at 12:31 PM.
 
Old 10-13-2015, 12:32 PM   #221
Didier Spaier
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slint64-14.2.1.2 on Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Posts: 9,473

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
When you update a dependency of software, packages that depend on that package must be rebuilt to use the newer library. This means if you want newer OpenSSH, and you have a newer OpenSSL and newer Linux-PAM, you not only need OpenSSL and Linux-PAM, but now you need shadow, sudo, etc. because they were using the older PAM library and will need these updated as well, and slackpkg does NOT enforce updates to dependencies and packages reliant upon them.
We all know that Slackware doesn't provide a tool to do automatic dependencies resolution management, thus someone who use third party packages has to take care of that when updating it. Again, what's new or PAM-specific there?

PS I didn't see the last two paragraphs that you added before posting.

But again, PAM is not a problem: if/then it is included in Slackware it will be managed by the Slackware team the same way as all other software. Until then and for the reasons already stated by ponce in post #176 it will not be "dropped in SBo", but that doesn't prevent anyone to install one of the incarnations listed by ponce in post #190 and manage the dependencies to keep one's system consistent. That's just that maybe you will not easily find someone to do that for you.

On the other hand if actually you don't need PAM (I don't either, by the way), why bother at all?

Last edited by Didier Spaier; 10-13-2015 at 12:45 PM. Reason: PS added.
 
Old 10-13-2015, 12:39 PM   #222
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 6,450
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030Reputation: 2030
Nothing specific to PAM, but creating a massive web of dependencies into a system that doesn't enforce updates or provide dependency resolution is not the best of ideas. You'd only be creating a point-of-failure within the system.
 
Old 10-13-2015, 12:49 PM   #223
Didier Spaier
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slint64-14.2.1.2 on Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Posts: 9,473

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Nothing specific to PAM, but creating a massive web of dependencies into a system that doesn't enforce updates or provide dependency resolution is not the best of ideas. You'd only be creating a point-of-failure within the system.
Then just don't use it, but please let people free to use it, even if in your opinion they are shooting themselves in the foot. That's their foot not yours, after all.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-13-2015, 12:55 PM   #224
Smokey_justme
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 534

Rep: Reputation: 203Reputation: 203Reputation: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
When you update a dependency of software, packages that depend on that package must be rebuilt to use the newer library. This means if you want newer OpenSSH, and you have a newer OpenSSL and newer Linux-PAM, you not only need OpenSSL and Linux-PAM, but now you need shadow, sudo, etc. because they were using the older PAM library and will need these updated as well, and slackpkg does NOT enforce updates to dependencies and packages reliant upon them.
Really, so updating from a testing repository could break your system... Wow... (facepalm)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Yes, PAM is a good idea, it may be the best damn idea since Colombian Supreme coffee by Juan Valdez, but Slackware does not have any way or means to force updates to software dependencies and packages reliant upon them. PAM is a problem, and it's not a small problem like people think it is.
Yes, it will be difficult to be implemented .. And will break some testing systems if you don't do full updates... Great, what else!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
And this is the EXACT reasoning behind dropping it in SBO and letting people decide for themselves.
You still don't get that people advocating for PAM can't exactly put post-it notes on the under-the-table server to keep track of the packages that are different from the official repository (no, really... It's sad to see that you seem to think Slackware is only good at home desktop and single-hobbie-servers) ... Or you still don't get how PAM works and what it is exactly... It's amazing that you don't get that people who really need it are exactly those that can't be bothered (by time-constraints and security-constraints) to keep their own repository and package lists (that changes over time) for every system they do it for.. Yet, the people that are not affected by the inclusion are those that could actually keep a non-PAM version on a separate repository...

There is a reason why no one uses Linux From Scratch systems on real production networks.. Yet, such a system would still be fine on a home system if you have the time to build it...

So you know what... If you don't like PAM you should be the one that should keep track of the packages needed to make the system work without it since you have the time, the posibility and take almost no risk by doing this.. It just makes sense

Last edited by Smokey_justme; 10-13-2015 at 12:56 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-13-2015, 01:24 PM   #225
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,314

Rep: Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018Reputation: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Nothing specific to PAM, but creating a massive web of dependencies into a system that doesn't enforce updates or provide dependency resolution is not the best of ideas. You'd only be creating a point-of-failure within the system.
Hmm... like libjpeg, qt, or gtk? There's a reason that -current isn't recommended for regular users, and you should know that. I don't even know what you're arguing for anymore. First you were complaining that ivandi doesn't make packages available to slackpkg+, now you're complaining that PAM creates too many dependencies and it's too difficult to keep up with dependencies. Can you make up your mind?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PAM and Slackware 10.2 darkarcon2015 Slackware 15 10-20-2007 02:32 PM
PAM Available For Slackware 10.0 eric.r.turner Slackware 14 09-22-2006 12:08 PM
PAM for my Slackware rmg Linux - Newbie 3 04-06-2006 01:10 PM
does slackware 10 support PAM? joroxx Slackware - Installation 2 11-16-2004 12:06 AM
pam mount in slackware 10 qwijibow Linux - Software 1 08-06-2004 08:37 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration