Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/05/05 01:19 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: >>The choice is still up to the reader to install the package or not. > > That's not a valid reasoning, particulary since it was you who said > earlier that no package in LFS should carry a "this is optional" > disclaimer on it. Yes, the idea of LFS is to teach how to build a custom > system, but the point of the LFS BOOK is to give a good idea of how, > exactly, to accomplish this.
Chris, understand I don't care if LFS includes CrackLib or not, I think it should, but that is just one guy's opinion. I think CrackLib should be included because it makes LFS better. If you think differently, then so be it. But provide a technical argument more than "seatbelt laws". -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 01:20:00 up 125 days, 53 min, 2 users, load average: 0.54, 0.93, 0.78 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
