Justin R. Knierim wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
There is no middle ground. LFS recommends a build method. We don't
sit on the fence and say, "well, if you really don't want this
package, you don't need to install it". This would need to be
added into several of the LFS package instructions. Is this what
we should do?
I was not aware of LFS being so strict. There are cases where the user
is given a choice, for example with regard to System-V or BSD style init
(notes in psmisc about a symlink and 7.1 with a link to the BSD init
hint). I don't see a problem with a note being there. I believe there
were earlier links to BLFS for gcc and shadow for additional functions,
etc, but it seems they are not there anymore.
My opinion is -1. My reason is LFS is about the base system ready to be
added to and secured. If we really wanted to be secure, (stupid
examples follow, not meant as suggestions) we wouldn't setup networking
and/or would setup iptables with a rule to block all traffic. If there
was simply a link from the LFS shadow page to BLFS cracklib,pam,shadow,
then the user can add those packages without needing a recompile.
Just my opinion.
Justin
I agree. All that's needed is to add a link to that section of BLFS in
the Shadow instructions. Besides, I thought tight security was what HLFS
existed for - the base LFS is mostly just to teach people how to create
a system that works.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
