Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I've been investigating the Linux Standards Base core specification. > > http://dev.linux-foundation.org/betaspecs/booksets/LSB-Core-IA32/LSB-Core-IA32.html#REQUIREMENTS > > 3. For the full spec, we also need libpam. Does this LSB core requirement > justify promoting PAM from BLFS to LFS? > > Comments? > > -- Bruce > For what its worth, I have thought a long time that having to recompile cracklib into shadow after LFS was a pita (or asking folks to deviate from the book). If we want to go full LSB compliant (which, like the FHS is a good thing) then maybe we pull cracklib and PAM over into LFS. This would certainly save recompile time and we could use the opportunity to help the community learn about PAM. We would also provide a well defined and secured logon authentication system in base LFS that follows the industry best practices right out of the box. We certainly would not go for the extra doco that the PAM package tarball has in it, we can save that for BLFS.
My $0.02 James -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
