1 |
Pierre-Yves Rofes wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, July 21, 2008 9:04 pm, Aleksey V Lazar wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Hello. Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or |
5 |
>> something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security reasons? |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> Thanks. |
8 |
>> Aleksey |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Hello, |
13 |
> |
14 |
> by "~security" you mean a keyword like ~x86 ? It's not a hardware |
15 |
> architecture, so it wouldn't make much sense. But having a way to list |
16 |
> masked packages for security reasons is indeed a good idea. The problem |
17 |
> is finding how to do it "the right way". |
18 |
> |
19 |
> |
20 |
> -- |
21 |
> Pierre-Yves Rofes |
22 |
> Gentoo Linux Security Team |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
I was thinking more along the lines of adding a special mark to the list |
26 |
that currently includes "~", "+" and "M". Let's say it would be "!". |
27 |
This mark could then be used for package versions with security |
28 |
problems. I don't know if this is technically possible, but I could see |
29 |
"!" used in conjunction with the "~", "+" or "M" to alert/indicate a |
30 |
security issue, like "~!", or "+!" or "M!". I think this is what I meant. |
31 |
|
32 |
Thanks. |
33 |
Aleksey |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Aleksey V. Lazar |
37 |
Website Development |
38 |
Memorial Library 3010 |
39 |
Minnesota State University |
40 |
Mankato, MN 56001 |
41 |
http://www.mnsu.edu/ |
42 |
Tel.: 1-507-389-2480 |