On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 10:41 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:26:53AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > Plus, I'd like to see an easy option (something I could put in the boot > > > > conf) to make continuing with a weak password not an option. > > > Which then leads to more special cases, more one-off code that doesn't > > > get tested and other such problems. I'm pretty against making the > > > behavior here dependent on boot-time args. > > > We need less of that, not more. > > I can always patch it to behave the way I want for my use here. But I want > > less of *that*, not more. :) > > Or, to put it another way, could we consider making mandatory > minimally-strong passwords the default? Or making a whole series of > yes/no/okay/no-really/yes dialogs required to bypass so that skipping is > more annoying than just thinking up a good password? The problem is that it's really hard to give good guidance on a "minimally-strong" password. And doing a series of dialogs is no better than just one -- the people that are going to bypass the recommendation are still going to do so, they're just going to be more annoyed about it and complain more Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
