Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Randy and All. First, I want to thank all participants to this
thread for keeping it civil. I am so glad we could do that.
My opinion/vote is -1. I feel that technically speaking, Randy, your
idea is fine. It is good to have a more secure system. I also feel,
however, that Cracklib does not fit into the LFS model. I have been
doing LFS since 3.0. LFS has been about an *absolute* base functioning
system which one can take and extend or whatever they want. It has also
been about education. LFS has come so far to the better in both of
these areas. We have a technically well designed and implemented build
system for a base box. No mess, no fuss. And we have increased the
educational value of the whole thing a whole lot. While Cracklib is a
good library, it does not fit here. What if I don't want a password
checker on my box? My answer to this is education and links to BLFS. I
know you have already said in other parts of this thread that you don't
like this idea and that the instructions would need work. OK, let's do
that. We already have places in the book where we say "if you want you
can do.... and go to BLFS here...." Why can't we do that with Cracklib?
I am not suggesting we do Linux PAM as well. I know many of you do
not like it, so I am not even going to get into that. I know we
currently have some potentially optional packages in there now, and it
could be argued that we should pull them. In my opinion, let them be
grandfathered in. They have been in so long it is not even funny.
In closing, I say - Good Idea, but not for LFS.
Thanks
James
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
