| 1 |
On Monday 21 July 2008, Aleksey V Lazar wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello. Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or |
| 3 |
> something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security |
| 4 |
> reasons? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Hi Aleksey, |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
since entries package.mask only contain free text description as an |
| 9 |
additional information, such a feature would require the package |
| 10 |
manager to decide which entries are security maskings, and which are |
| 11 |
feature maskings. While that could be done using |
| 12 |
restrictions/conventions within the text, I am sure our package manager |
| 13 |
developers would disagree with such a design. A "package.security.mask" |
| 14 |
file might be more appropriate for that. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
My question now is, why would you want such a thing? Masked packages all |
| 17 |
have different reasons to be there, and you should decide to use one on |
| 18 |
a case-by-case basis. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Regards, |
| 21 |
Robert |
Archives