[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

Randy McMurchy LFS-User at mcmurchy.com
Thu Aug 4 20:39:07 PDT 2005

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/04/05 22:21 CST:

> 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*.

Okay, I will concede to this philosophy. However, to compare
something out of the default Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 builds (Item
7.1), is not the same.

I am proposing something be added to to Chapter 6. You, however,
won't commit to a "yes, this is a good idea", or "No, this is not
a good idea because ....".

You, instead, say it is okay, with the caveat that "there be a note
that it is optional, and may be skipped". This is not how *any other
package in Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 is described*.

To me, Jeremy, you are trying to set a precedent for packages in
these two critical chapters to be optional. This is not how LFS has
done things in the past. Are you suggesting we change the package
instructions for other packages that folks don't use, to be optional
as well?

Please, provide arguments against the merits of adding CrackLib to
LFS, or simply agree. My whole point with your comments has been
the "have a note to say it can be skipped".

Such a note is contrary to the idea of having it there in the
first place. If you don't think it is a good idea, say so. If you
do think it is a good idea, then say that.

There is no middle ground. LFS recommends a build method. We don't
sit on the fence and say, "well, if you really don't want this
package, you don't need to install it". This would need to be
added into several of the LFS package instructions. Is this what
we should do?


rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
22:26:00 up 124 days, 21:59, 2 users, load average: 0.20, 0.30, 0.44

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list