Walter Dnes schreef: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:17:06PM +0200, Holly Bostick wrote > > >>PAM is an *optional* dependency; you can compile the program "-pam" and > > > PAM is an *OPTIONAL PROGRAM*; build your system with... > > [m450][root][~]cat /etc/portage/package.mask > sys-libs/pam
Yes, I know (my system is built without PAM, and I didn't mask it, I removed it, re-emerged shadow and then the system -pam in the first place), but removing PAM if your system is built from default settings is a fairly complex task (though not as complex as it used to be), and a distraction from the original question. Therefore I suggested a quicker solution to solving the original problem (getting one program installed and proceeding with the world update), which was removing the pam dependency for that program only (you can then decide about the rest later). If one wants to remove PAM totally (which is not a bad idea, but opinions vary), there's lots of threads on the forums that provide adequate guidance, from how to remove PAM on a running system, to how to install without it in the first place. > > in addition to "-pam" in use, and you will find Gentoo a lot more > pleasant. One question... why does OpenOffice *DEMAND* PAM to build > from source??? The binary ebuild installs OK without PAM. > There's a bug about this. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71898 and the article in the Wiki http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Remove_PAM also discusses this, as well as the similar (previous) issue with GDM, whose ebuild has been updated to make PAM an optional dependency. Myself, I use the binary OOo build anyway; I just didn't have the patience to deal with that long compile, no-pam patch or not (but I did compile OOo-ximian once with the patch, and it built, anyway. Apparently there's some delay in upstream testing and including the patch to make PAM optional. But since they're so close to finishing 2.0, I guess I'm not surprised that they might have other priorities. Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
