[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

Richard A Downing richard at langside.org.uk
Thu Aug 4 22:45:13 PDT 2005

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 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:

Well then, if rules aren't possible, how about a documented formal
process for deciding on new package addition and removal?

I would suggest:

1) The proposer writes a proposal, which includes a 'patch' to the book,
and publishes it here.
2) The Project Manager places a 'Vote' box on the website with a link to
the proposal.
3) The Project Manager notifies the community here and waits 14 days.
4) The votes for and against are counted, and the decision recorded here.

I also tend to the thought that only those subscribed to the LFS-Dev
mailing list should have votes (nntp users can subscribe 'on vacation')
and that LFS editors should have ten votes (they have to maintain it),
and BLFS editors five votes (they have to live with the consequences).

Needs some technology, but then that's what we're good at.

(another damn Brit!)

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list