[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Aug 4 16:25:28 PDT 2005


Randy McMurchy wrote:

> However, LFS history has shown that we cannot count on such a document
> to become formalized.

I'm not sure if a formal set of rules is in fact possible.  If we 
consider the packages that are in the book at the moment, they can be 
broken down into roughly these areas:

1. Toolchain
2. Required/useful optional build dependency (e.g. ncurses, zlib, readline)
2. Useful development tools (autotools)
3. FHS/LSB stipulated binary (coreutils, grep, gawk, etc.)
4. Historical/accidental (psmisc, procps, etc.)

So, now try converting that into a formal specification!

Obviously the above list is useful in terms of stopping packages like 
Apache and MySQL getting into LFS, but it seems to me there's enough 
room to manouevre using that list that if someone proposes a new package 
it will more than likely lead to a discussion such as this one.  The 
benefit of having a formal 'Package Criteria Specification' document is 
therefore debatable, IMO.

Regards,

Matt.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list