Armin K. wrote: > On 12/12/2013 11:14 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: >> On 12/12/2013 03:17 PM, akhiezer wrote: >>>> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:37:39 -0600 >>>> From: Dan McGhee <[email protected]> >>>> To: BLFS Support List <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Polkit Actions >>>> >>> . >>> . >>>> I usually don't suggest things like this and I don't know if ConsoleKit >>>> can be used without PAM. [...] >>> It can be used ohne PAM: Slackware does not use PAM, and does use >>> (optionally) >>> console-kit; ref e.g. >>> -- >>> * ftp://ftp.slackware.no/slackware/slackware64-14.1/source/l/ConsoleKit/ >>> >>> * >>> ftp://ftp.slackware.no/slackware/slackware64-14.1/source/l/ConsoleKit/ConsoleKit.SlackBuild >>> -- >>>> [...] But in some of the pacakge pages there are >>>> comments like "If you don't install the optional dependencies then you >>>> can't do <description>. Armin said yesterday that PAM was almost a >>>> required dependency of ConsoleKit. Maybe a comment of explanation would >>>> be appropriate for the ConsoleKit page. >>>> >>> 'almost' !== 'required' (of course). >>> >>> >>> Hopefully BLFS will continue the recent-years move towards the practice of >>> being (more) rigourous, consistent, strict and correct, about the meanings >>> of 'Required', 'Recommended', 'Optional', and their variants. In other parts >>> of Linux, there's been far too much - to put it lightly - forcing of >>> contrived dependencies: so I'd hope it doesn't begin to appear in >>> (B/)Lennux From Scratch also. >> I agree with you 100%. And this is why I hesitate to make suggestions >> like I did. >> >> When something does not work for me, the situation is usually that I >> missed something in the book's instructions or I didn't have the >> knowledge to make it work in the first place. This was the case with the >> console kit, gnome-polkit, polkit, xfce4 combination that I wanted to >> configure. And in my latest situation, it was console-kit that was not >> "helping." I know I would not have had the problem if I had installed >> KDE, but I chose XFCE4 and had to work on the configuration myself. >> >> My knowledge, or, as in this case, the lack of it is usually the >> culprit. Even after the last couple of days I have only a foggy notion >> of how all those applications fit together and work. The piece of >> knowledge that ConsoleKit needs PAM to generate an active session solved >> my problem. >> >> Now is it the entire set of PAM modules? I don't know. I don't even know >> if having only one PAM module will do the trick. I found it interesting >> in examining one of the links you provided that I found these lines in >> slack's install script for ConsoleKit: >>> cat $CWD/pam-foreground-compat.ck > \ >>> $PKG/usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-session.d/pam-foreground-compat.ck >>> chmod 0755 $PKG/usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-session.d/pam-foreground-compat.ck >> That file pam-foreground-compat.ck is built and installed in ConsoleKit. >> Can it be used without the rest of PAM? If slack doesn't install PAM, >> the answer is yes. But, how then do you configure ConsoleKit to work >> properly. It didn't in my install. >> >> It may not be precise or technically correct, but installing PAM helped >> my system to work. Is it then a "run time" dependency? Maybe you could >> call it that. >> > > No, it's a build and runtime dependency. You need PAM headers and libs > to build pam_consolekit.so PAM module, which in turn is responsible > (using PAM session facility) to register a local session with > ConsoleKit. Same mechanism is used by systemd-logind, which uses > pam_systemd.so to register sessions. > >> This is the logic that I used when I wrote what I did. I figure that if >> I don't find anything in the archives, then I'm the only one who's >> having the problems, or, at least, I'm the only on who is asking. That's >> not a basis for suggesting a change or addition to the book. >> > > Believe me, you are not the only one who has this specific problem. I > lost a count of these people. We have a policy that we can mark required > packages only if the package can't be built without it. Recommended > packages are ones which are essential, but package can be built without > them. We do expect that recommended dependencies are honored. Optional > dependencies are what you think they are. You can or can't install them, > your choice. You might be missing some specific (and not so common) > funcionality, but you can always reinstall package later with specific > feature enabled.
We've always allowed extra information in the form of text or a note. It sounds like this is needed here. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
