Question: 6.54 Shadow w/ Package Users hint

Brian Winfrey bwcode4u at
Sun Feb 6 16:12:21 PST 2011

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Ken Moffat <ken at> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 02:21:34PM -0800, Brian Winfrey wrote:
>> I was thinking I didn't need it until the system is live, and it may
>> or may not complicate things, and I have had to restart several times
>> already.
>> For example I believe it changes su, so if I need to uninstall it for
>> some reason, I will need to restore files it has changed.
>> I guess the question to ask what is the downside of deferring it?
>  If you are following the book, it *installs* su.  I presume that
> you have some modification to the book to suite the hint.  If
> everything in your system is only linked against libraries in /lib
> and /usr/lib, then the obvious downside is your password storage.
> OTOH, if your modification means you rely on libraries in /tools/lib
> then your system will be incomplete (broken, at least if you don't
> extend $PATH) when you boot it.
>  Ultimately, it's your system, so you might need to do some
> evaluation to find out what the downside is to *not* following the
> book.  I remember that, from time to time, people suggest we don't
> actually *need* the autotools - it all depends on what you are going
> to do with the new LFS system.  In my case, I've been playing with
> newer desktop versions and definitely needed them to overcome
> problems.  In a very-limited case you *might* manage to defer
> installing shadow, but why take the risk ?
>  The more general answer is "FBBG".
> ĸen
> --
> das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
> --
> FAQ:
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Unless I hear that someone has done it with no problem, I think I'll
follow that rule.

More information about the lfs-support mailing list