[RFC] Add CrackLib to Chapter 6 LFS

Archaic archaic at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Aug 5 00:27:33 PDT 2005

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:10:43AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> No, Archiac, a hint doesn't serve the same purpose.

Then perhaps your purpose was flawed in that it didn't account for
people who don't want/need cracklib or for the package not being needed
for a basic development system (which by definition is enough of a
system to allow customization and additions per the reader's own
desire). A hint gives ample exposure to the (perceived) problem and a
viable solution. What more is __required__? Let's go through the
original request:

Point 1:    valid, but many paths lead to that end.

Points 2-5: Only supports that cracklib is stable and instructions are

Point 6:    A reason why it can't be in BLFS

Point 7:    Here's the meat of your purpose from what I can tell:
	    "LFS should attempt to provide readers with a stable and
            *secure* system"

How does a note with a link to a hint *not* accomplish that?

> At least 5 people have agreed.

Yes. You said that last time.

> I don't have any idea how a hint even comes into play here.

It isn't due my lack at trying to clearly and explicitly explain it to
you. I don't care if you disagree. What is scary is your use of phrasing
like above (and elsewhere in this thread) in which it appears you don't
accept alternate solutions into your world view.

> This wasn't in the RFC, and nobody that I can think of has expanded on
> this hint idea.

What is there to expand on? It is cut and dried and doesn't carry any of
the baggage that your proposal has.


Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list