Hi all, Well, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the debate about adding CrackLib to LFS. There was a bunch of ideas thrown around. It seemed healthy for the list.
Anyway, some of the folks who provided arguments why CrackLib should not be added had very good ideas about LFS, goals, etc. I tend to agree with those that said they didn't like the idea that CrackLib be forced into the build. Hey, if you don't want it, don't install it! There is merit in those words. However, to me, it is negligent on our part to completely omit a mention of CrackLib in LFS. That said, how about this for a compromise: In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the package instructions saying that if you would like the system configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add --with-libcrack to the configure script. It could probably be done in one sentence, two max, with a link to the BLFS CrackLib instructions. This informs folks that there is a mechanism available by installing one simple package to enforce strong passwords, and keeps the BLFS guys from having to modify the BLFS Shadow instructions to include a way to re-install Shadow without PAM and still have CrackLib available. What say the group? -- 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] 20:40:00 up 127 days, 20:13, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.17 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
