[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Sun Aug 7 21:22:32 PDT 2005


Tushar Teredesai wrote:

> Every time such a topic comes up, there is a huge discussion on what
> is required or not required and finally it turns into a discussion
> about the goals of LFS.
> 
> I would like to propose that before adding/removing packages from the
> book, we should formalize what packages can be included in the book
> (Jeroen had already started the process of formalizing the process
> before he left, maybe that should be revived). After formalizing, a
> decision can be made whether the current packages fit that criteria or
> not and then decide whether any new packages that are suggested fit in
> that criteria. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule
> :-)

I'm afraid that I disagree with your proposal.  Each package addition or
deletion should be discussed on its unique merits and a decision made by
Matt after thoughtful consideration.

In the case of cracklib, Randy has proposed it because it interacts so
heavily with shadow and it would be a very useful security addition.

Having said that, I notice that there are 104 messages on this thread!
  I have only read about 7 so far, so I'll read on...

  -- Bruce




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list