On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 20:59 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: > Just a "me too" not to let you feel alone here ;) > I fully agree. PAM and Cracklib are both useful libraries but their > goals are completely orthogonal.
At this point, because I feel it is worth discussing further, I'm going to post Bruce's original message and a summary of the replies so far to BLFS-Dev. I don't want to have Cracklib be a recommended dependency, if indeed it really doesn't need to be. Though, like Bruce, I would like to know *why* you guys use PAM and not Cracklib. Nobody has answered that question, and that is what Bruce asked. He didn't ask if Cracklib and Pam depended upon each other, or if it could be used with one and not the other. He asked *why* one would want that. Of course, nobody is obligated to answer that question. :-) -- Randy rmlinux: [bogomips 3993.32] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.2] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 14:02:32 up 2 days, 21:37, 8 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
