| 1 |
> On Wednesday 21 July 2004 16:25, aeriksson@××××××××.fm wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I second that feeling. If what we're trying to achieve is to have a |
| 3 |
> > way to signal to the sysadmins that a security update is present, why |
| 4 |
> > not just add a [S] entry to 'emerge -pv'? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Two things. First off, I'd hope to achieve a lot more than just adding a |
| 7 |
> [S] entry to emerge -pv. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Care to elaborate? "It's nifty for the future" is a bad argument. Far |
| 10 |
too many times have I came across people who thinks all problems goes |
| 11 |
away if the solution is implemented using xml (I'm NOT saying you're |
| 12 |
one of them). Present the problems you want to fix, and we'll discuss |
| 13 |
them. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>> Secondly, where do you think Portage will get the information from |
| 17 |
>> to decide whether or not to add the [S]? Right now, the design of |
| 18 |
the |
| 19 |
>> glsa toolset is to bolt this information onto the side. With |
| 20 |
XML-based |
| 21 |
>> changelogs, the information could be stored where it belongs - in |
| 22 |
the |
| 23 |
>> list of what has changed and why. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Why not add that bit of info the the ebuild which incorporates the |
| 27 |
fix? "SECURITYFIX=url1 url2 http://www.gentoo.org/GLSA1234whatever" |
| 28 |
would be all need. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
For a sysadmin who's not into updating every day for the fun of it, |
| 31 |
the stream of new ebuilds _with_ SECURITYFIX clauses would constitute |
| 32 |
'vertual dependecies" he like to depend on. So from his pow, it's |
| 33 |
legit ebuild information. Or put the other way around, why not move |
| 34 |
all the other headers in ebuilds to xml, and use xml-aware tools to |
| 35 |
execute on them? (joke) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
BR, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
/Anders |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives