[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Aug 4 20:21:04 PDT 2005

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> This can be applied to many of the LFS packages. It is a meaningless
> suggestion, as this is not the way it is done in LFS.

Perhaps salting a baboon would be a good idea.

Now that's a meaningless suggestion. Mine however, was not.

There are already precedents in the LFS book where items are shown to be 
at least somewhat optional. Read section 7.1. Also, the entire idea 
behind LFS is to customize the system to fit your needs - to be able to 
be in full control of *your* system - to teach you how to create 
something that's just right for *you*. I think to fit that philosophy 
it's only fair to let people know that a certain package isn't actually 
required for you to have a working (and secure!) system. Sure cracklib 
helps, but you can have a secure system without it.

Inform the user and let them make the decision about what's right for 
them. To me, *that's* the spirit of LFS.

And that's my position. There is no sitting on the fence here, Randy. 
I'm totally fine with the idea to include Cracklib - but I think we need 
to let people know what sorts of options they have, we are after all 
trying to educate people aren't we?


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list