| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> > I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the PMS |
| 4 |
>>> > altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting to a |
| 5 |
>>> > selinux system where one relabels the entire filesystem with rlpkg. |
| 6 |
>>> > So no, not something via pkg_postinst(). |
| 7 |
>> Please don't. |
| 8 |
> Why would this be bad? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Something that comes to mind would be the inability to systematically |
| 11 |
verify the installed system. We obviously don't currently store posix |
| 12 |
capabilities the way we store mtimes and hashes, but I would think |
| 13 |
that this would just be one more part of the EAPI if we properly |
| 14 |
define it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That said, I don't see manual scripts outside of portage being a |
| 17 |
possible workaround, but it should probably only be used |
| 18 |
experimentally. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Rich |
Archives