Jim Gifford wrote:
It's an addon, not a required package. I just don't think it's place is
in LFS or Cross-LFS. I think BLFS is the perfect place, since it's an
optional package.
I'm not so sure. We have a lot of packages that aren't actually
*required* for the build (autotools, mktemp, zlib, readline, etc.). I
think, as time goes on, that's becoming an increasingly poor criteria to
assess a package on. I'm quite happy to put cracklib in the book
entirely on the basis of its security merits. That's pending further
opinions on the list of course.
However, we need to be careful we choose the most appropriate package.
A google search reveals 3 candidates:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/cracklib (Randy's proposal)
http://www.fifi.org/doc/cracklib2/ (A debian package)
http://www.crypticide.com/users/alecm/ (The original library and until
now the only cracklib I knew of!)
Out of those I'd instantly reject the original, as it appears to be
unmaintained (though it might have reached Knuth's Tex stage, where
there simply aren't any bugs so it doesn't need any more releases!).
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
