[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

Justin R. Knierim lfs at lfs-matrix.net
Thu Aug 4 21:25:53 PDT 2005

Randy McMurchy wrote:

>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?
I was not aware of LFS being so strict.  There are cases where the user is given a choice, for example with regard to System-V or BSD style init (notes in psmisc about a symlink and 7.1 with a link to the BSD init hint).  I don't see a problem with a note being there.  I believe there were earlier links to BLFS for gcc and shadow for additional functions, etc, but it seems they are not there anymore.

My opinion is -1.  My reason is LFS is about the base system ready to be added to and secured.  If we really wanted to be secure, (stupid examples follow, not meant as suggestions) we wouldn't setup networking and/or would setup iptables with a rule to block all traffic.  If there was simply a link from the LFS shadow page to BLFS cracklib,pam,shadow, then the user can add those packages without needing a recompile.

Just my opinion.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list