Re: [blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-08 Thread Bruce Dubbs 

Ken Moffat wrote:

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:06PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:

Ken Moffat wrote:


My preference is recommended, if possible. But agree with Ken's decision
if he still wishes to promote to required


My rationale is that Recommended either means

(i.) The package can build without this, and without extra configure
switches, but the recommended package provides useful extra
functionality (is that a word ?)

or

(ii.) The package can be built without this, but you need to supply
extra configure switches.

This package, as shipped, matches neither option.  I am reluctant to
include a patch in the book just so that people can detune what
upstream shipped.


My definition of recommended is that the package provides extra
functionality for the package that you probably want.  The instructions
provided also assume that all recommended packages are installed.  If you
don't want to install a recommended dependency, then there may be other
things that you need to do to build the package.  Those things may include,
but are not limited to, a modification of options for configure.

   -- Bruce


In this case, I am sure that the additional package provides extra
functionality.  The question for me is whether the package can be
(easily) built without that functionality if I so choose.  If it
cannot, I continue to assert that the dependency is "Required".

I think that hacking the code (two headers and 3 c files, as well as
the man page, which is what all patch does, but without changing any
of the configure{,.*} scripts) and still having to hack configure in
some way is not a sane use of "Recommended" rather than "Required".


OK.  I was just mentioning my understanding of "Recommended".  In this 
case, I agree with "Required".


  -- Bruce


--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-08 Thread Ken Moffat 
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 09:40:07PM -0600, William Harrington wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:17:25 +
> Ken Moffat  wrote:
> 
> > I'm trying to build libpwquality, for whichever part of kde5 now
> > requires it.  I noted that we have PAM and Cracklib as
> > "Recommended".
> 
> Fedora has a patch which is supposed to make it optional, as far as I can 
> tell.
> 
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/libpwquality-comm...@lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/7QJQZCJYNFTX3BQ2UILGQQUBIOTJXAAL/
> 
> Could make it required or optional with the patch if it is valid.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> William Harrington

Hi William,

Thanks for that link.  If anybody is a minimalist AND needs
libpwquality, I am sure the patch will be useful.  But for the book
I will change Cracklib to "Required".

For plasma (the part of kde5 which needs that lib), I don't think
being a minimalist is possible.

Cheers.

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-08 Thread Ken Moffat 
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:27:10PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 08-02-2016 00:40, William Harrington escreveu:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:17:25 +
> > Ken Moffat  wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm trying to build libpwquality, for whichever part of kde5 now
> >> requires it.  I noted that we have PAM and Cracklib as
> >> "Recommended".
> > 
> > Fedora has a patch which is supposed to make it optional, as far as I can 
> > tell.
> > 
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/libpwquality-comm...@lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/7QJQZCJYNFTX3BQ2UILGQQUBIOTJXAAL/
> > 
> > Could make it required or optional with the patch if it is valid.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > William Harrington
> > 
> 
> My preference is recommended, if possible. But agree with Ken's decision
> if he still wishes to promote to required
> 
My rational is that Recommended either means

(i.) The package can build without this, and without extra configure
switches, but the recommended package provides useful extra
functionality (is that a word ?)

or

(ii.) The package can be built without this, but you need to supply
extra configure switches.

This package, as shipped, matches neither option.  I am reluctant to
include a patch in the book just so that people can detune what
upstream shipped.

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-08 Thread Bruce Dubbs 

Ken Moffat wrote:


My preference is recommended, if possible. But agree with Ken's decision
if he still wishes to promote to required


My rationale is that Recommended either means

(i.) The package can build without this, and without extra configure
switches, but the recommended package provides useful extra
functionality (is that a word ?)

or

(ii.) The package can be built without this, but you need to supply
extra configure switches.

This package, as shipped, matches neither option.  I am reluctant to
include a patch in the book just so that people can detune what
upstream shipped.


My definition of recommended is that the package provides extra 
functionality for the package that you probably want.  The instructions 
provided also assume that all recommended packages are installed.  If you 
don't want to install a recommended dependency, then there may be other 
things that you need to do to build the package.  Those things may 
include, but are not limited to, a modification of options for configure.


  -- Bruce

--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-08 Thread Fernando de Oliveira 
Em 08-02-2016 17:28, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:27:10PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Em 08-02-2016 00:40, William Harrington escreveu:
>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:17:25 +
>>> Ken Moffat  wrote:
>>>
 I'm trying to build libpwquality, for whichever part of kde5 now
 requires it.  I noted that we have PAM and Cracklib as
 "Recommended".
>>>
>>> Fedora has a patch which is supposed to make it optional, as far as I can 
>>> tell.
>>>
>>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/libpwquality-comm...@lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/7QJQZCJYNFTX3BQ2UILGQQUBIOTJXAAL/
>>>
>>> Could make it required or optional with the patch if it is valid.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> William Harrington
>>>
>>
>> My preference is recommended, if possible. But agree with Ken's decision
>> if he still wishes to promote to required
>>
> My rational is that Recommended either means
> 
> (i.) The package can build without this, and without extra configure
> switches, but the recommended package provides useful extra
> functionality (is that a word ?)
> 
> or
> 
> (ii.) The package can be built without this, but you need to supply
> extra configure switches.
> 
> This package, as shipped, matches neither option.  I am reluctant to
> include a patch in the book just so that people can detune what
> upstream shipped.

Agreed!


-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-08 Thread Ken Moffat 
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:17:06PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> 
> >>My preference is recommended, if possible. But agree with Ken's decision
> >>if he still wishes to promote to required
> >>
> >My rationale is that Recommended either means
> >
> >(i.) The package can build without this, and without extra configure
> >switches, but the recommended package provides useful extra
> >functionality (is that a word ?)
> >
> >or
> >
> >(ii.) The package can be built without this, but you need to supply
> >extra configure switches.
> >
> >This package, as shipped, matches neither option.  I am reluctant to
> >include a patch in the book just so that people can detune what
> >upstream shipped.
> 
> My definition of recommended is that the package provides extra
> functionality for the package that you probably want.  The instructions
> provided also assume that all recommended packages are installed.  If you
> don't want to install a recommended dependency, then there may be other
> things that you need to do to build the package.  Those things may include,
> but are not limited to, a modification of options for configure.
> 
>   -- Bruce
> 
In this case, I am sure that the additional package provides extra
functionality.  The question for me is whether the package can be
(easily) built without that functionality if I so choose.  If it
cannot, I continue to assert that the dependency is "Required".

I think that hacking the code (two headers and 3 c files, as well as
the man page, which is what all patch does, but without changing any
of the configure{,.*} scripts) and still having to hack configure in
some way is not a sane use of "Recommended" rather than "Required".

ĸen - "mm, bikeshedding - love it"
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-07 Thread William Harrington 
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:17:25 +
Ken Moffat  wrote:

> I'm trying to build libpwquality, for whichever part of kde5 now
> requires it.  I noted that we have PAM and Cracklib as
> "Recommended".

Fedora has a patch which is supposed to make it optional, as far as I can tell.

https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/libpwquality-comm...@lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/7QJQZCJYNFTX3BQ2UILGQQUBIOTJXAAL/

Could make it required or optional with the patch if it is valid.

Sincerely,

William Harrington
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

[blfs-dev] libpwquality : should cracklib be required ?

2016-02-07 Thread Ken Moffat 
I'm trying to build libpwquality, for whichever part of kde5 now
requires it.  I noted that we have PAM and Cracklib as
"Recommended".

I don't have any argument about PAM - for a graphical login using
sddm I accept it is needed.  But I'm still trying to not fill up my
rootfs, so I assumed there was some option I could pass to get
configure to complete without cracklib.  But it ended with

configure: error: No or unusable cracklib library

and after looking at the configure script I cannot see any way to
tell it to build without cracklib.  So, should that be moved from
Recommended to Required ?

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page