>Installing CrackLib in LFS just makes more sense to me now than when >I came up with the idea 8 hours ago. There so far has not been one >technical reason why we shouldn't do it.
If you consider this a technical answer then great. I think we need to look at what level of security LFS should offer. I can only imagine that someone way back when decided to create LFS at a given level of security, and that is where we are today. If it is decided to change the level of security in LFS, and a package like Cracklib meets that objective, then it should be moved from BLFS to LFS and become required as part of the LFS build. If the level of security in LFS today is acceptable, then Cracklib should stay where it is in BLFS as an optional package. Just my opinion. John -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
