Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/04/05 18:18 CST: > Is it a common enough (ie, several mainstream distros include it by > default) package to mandate that every LFS user build and install it?
I really don't know, Jeremy. I don't mess around enough with other Distros to be qualified to answer that. However, if we can provide something that affords a more secure system to LFS builders at the small expense of installing one small library, shouldn't we do it? Should we only do what other Distros do? Can LFS not be innovative and take a lead in something, and have other Distros follow us? Surely Distros must use CrackLib, I mean the Shadow and Linux-PAM packages natively support it. I'm not sure they would if nobody used CrackLib. Right? > Are there any disadvantages to including it in the LFS book? None that I can think of, unless forcing you to be the root user to make your password "Jeremy" on your local system is a disadvantage. :-) -- 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] 18:18:00 up 124 days, 17:51, 2 users, load average: 1.03, 1.05, 0.76 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
