Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 08/04/05 23:25 CST: > 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.
There really is no choices given in LFS Chapter 5 or 6, unless you want to consider the text in the Vim instructions to be a choice. We suggest a build method. It is up to the reader to follow, or not follow the suggestions. > 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. You are entitled to your opinion, thanks for offering it. Though I cannot see why you think that by installing *one* simple library, and the accompanying dictionary, is something that we would not want to suggest in the default LFS build, seeing how it plugs such a big security gap in the current LFS build. -- 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] 23:30:00 up 124 days, 23:03, 2 users, load average: 0.26, 0.17, 0.33 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
