Cracklib and PAM

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Mar 23 12:07:36 PST 2006


On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 20:59 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote:

> Just a "me too" not to let you feel alone here ;)
> I fully agree. PAM and Cracklib are both useful libraries but their
> goals are completely orthogonal.

At this point, because I feel it is worth discussing further, I'm going
to post Bruce's original message and a summary of the replies so far to
BLFS-Dev. 

I don't want to have Cracklib be a recommended dependency, if indeed
it really doesn't need to be. Though, like Bruce, I would like to know
*why* you guys use PAM and not Cracklib. Nobody has answered that 
question, and that is what Bruce asked. He didn't ask if Cracklib and
Pam depended upon each other, or if it could be used with one and not
the other.

He asked *why* one would want that. Of course, nobody is obligated to
answer that question. :-)

-- 
Randy

rmlinux: [bogomips 3993.32] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.2]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
14:02:32 up 2 days, 21:37, 8 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00





More information about the blfs-book mailing list