On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:01:16AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > 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.
I have already stated it. There is no *technical* reason for including it in a base development system. That is enough for me. Your reasons for including it are accurate, but you are disregarding the fact that it is *not* necessary. This screams of hint material, which would truly be a win-win situation. BTW, out of the 70-odd boxes I manage, I would use (and do use) cracklib on exactly one of them. That box also uses PAM, so even it would be moot. But alas, I am not speaking from personal needs as I would add several BLFS packages to LFS as well as remove a few. I am trying to see this objectively and that forces me to see this as perfect hint material with a link in the book because, frankly, this *is* an optional package. If I understood your posts in this thread accurately, you do not care for tagging packages as optional in the book. I don't either (for LFS). As such, cracklib has already disqualified itself on that basis. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
