Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?
LFS-User at mcmurchy.com
Sun Aug 7 22:16:42 PDT 2005
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:04 CST:
> Making a change like that for one package doesn't make sense. If we do
> that, why do we need BLFS, just put everything in LFS and say it's optional.
Jim, please enter the discussion with something worthwhile. How am
I to take you serious when you say something like this?
C'mon, Jim, be realistic. Cracklib is an enhancement to a package
provided by LFS and makes the system more secure. It fits, Jim.
Folks simply can read the one sentence and decide for themselves.
Install it or pass on it. At least LFS mentions it. To me, it can
only be a good thing.
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 188.8.131.52.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
00:12:01 up 127 days, 23:45, 5 users, load average: 1.02, 0.97, 0.62
More information about the lfs-dev