Archaic wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:18 CST: > I have already stated it. There is no *technical* reason for including > it in a base development system.
That is not a reason to not include it. The technical reason I state is that it provides a mechanism to enforce strong passwords on the system. This is the *technical* reason I'm standing for. I have yet to hear something that refutes this. > 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. I'm sorry. What keeps users from setting their passwords to "password"? BTW, PAM doesn't do password checking without a dictionary such as CrackLib, so I don't really see what your point is. -- 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] 00:19:01 up 124 days, 23:52, 2 users, load average: 1.32, 1.18, 0.87 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
