mordae at thirdcms.org
Fri May 18 08:13:18 PDT 2007
Robert Connolly wrote:
> Instead of porting shadow-utils to openssl, I think
> it would be more sensible to port openssl to shadow-utils, and start sortof
> from scratch.
Well, I always thought shadow is bloated, but rewriting the whole thing?
If we stick to GNU/Linux and forget about everything else, just
concentrate on what HLFS/BLFS needs... yes, sounds doable.
And as I look on the installed executables of shadow; what are those
like newgrp and others having letter 'g' in them for? I've never even
heard of them being used...
More information about the hlfs-dev