Shadow/CrackLib - A compromise?

Randy McMurchy LFS-User at
Sun Aug 7 23:45:21 PDT 2005

Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:40 CST:

> So you will need to get support for adding PAM and cracklib to LFS, 
> which I'm not sure the community will support.

It was about 50-50 running with the CrackLib idea, however, some of
the positives about CrackLib were adamant that PAM could *never* be
an LFS package.

I can't see PAM *ever* being LFS material.


rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
01:42:00 up 128 days, 1:15, 5 users, load average: 0.26, 0.20, 0.31

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list