[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Aug 5 21:03:29 PDT 2005

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Randy and All.  First, I want to thank all participants to this 
thread for keeping it civil.  I am so glad we could do that.

My opinion/vote is -1.  I feel that technically speaking, Randy, your 
idea is fine.  It is good to have a more secure system.  I also feel, 
however, that Cracklib does not fit into the LFS model.  I have been 
doing LFS since 3.0.  LFS has been about an *absolute* base functioning 
system which one can take and extend or whatever they want.  It has also 
been about education.  LFS has come so far to the better in both of 
these areas.  We have a technically well designed and implemented build 
system for a base box.  No mess, no fuss.  And we have increased the 
educational value of the whole thing a whole lot.  While Cracklib is a 
good library, it does not fit here.  What if I don't want a password 
checker on my box?  My answer to this is education and links to BLFS.  I 
know you have already said in other parts of this thread that you don't 
like this idea and that the instructions would need work.  OK, let's do 
that.  We already have places in the book where we say "if you want you 
can do.... and go to BLFS here...."  Why can't we do that with Cracklib? 
  I am not suggesting we do Linux PAM as well.  I know many of you do 
not like it, so I am not even going to get into that.  I know we 
currently have some potentially optional packages in there now, and it 
could be argued that we should pull them.  In my opinion, let them be 
grandfathered in.  They have been in so long it is not even funny.

In closing, I say - Good Idea, but not for LFS.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list