Archaic wrote these words on 08/04/05 23:52 CST: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 11:46:46PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>There would be no link that we could offer in LFS that could assist >>the user in configuring Shadow to work with CrackLib. BLFS does not >>have such a configuration. > > If BLFS cannot create such a situation, then a hint would surely > suffice.
Please, Archaic, provide at least one reason why you think CrackLib is not a good addition to LFS. It is a win-win situation. It works with Shadow perfectly, it is an actively maintained package, and it provides a needed service to the LFS build. I respect your opinion that it isn't needed, however, it would be much easier to understand if you gave just *one* reason why you think it wouldn't be a good thing. -- 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] 23:57:00 up 124 days, 23:30, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.20, 0.19 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
