Randy McMurchy wrote:
This can be applied to many of the LFS packages. It is a meaningless
suggestion, as this is not the way it is done in LFS.
Perhaps salting a baboon would be a good idea.
Now that's a meaningless suggestion. Mine however, was not.
There are already precedents in the LFS book where items are shown to be
at least somewhat optional. Read section 7.1. Also, the entire idea
behind LFS is to customize the system to fit your needs - to be able to
be in full control of *your* system - to teach you how to create
something that's just right for *you*. I think to fit that philosophy
it's only fair to let people know that a certain package isn't actually
required for you to have a working (and secure!) system. Sure cracklib
helps, but you can have a secure system without it.
Inform the user and let them make the decision about what's right for
them. To me, *that's* the spirit of LFS.
And that's my position. There is no sitting on the fence here, Randy.
I'm totally fine with the idea to include Cracklib - but I think we need
to let people know what sorts of options they have, we are after all
trying to educate people aren't we?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
