| 1 |
>Back to the original question. How do I run a number of gentoo boxes |
| 2 |
>without gcc (or a portage tree)? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
This all sounds way over my head, but anyway... could distcc be the answer? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/distcc.xml |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
JC |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On 5/22/07, Ronan Mullally <ronan@×××.ie> wrote: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > But, of course, if they got access to the box, then the compiler is the |
| 15 |
> > least of your problems at that time, but I have to admit that the |
| 16 |
> > "slowing the attacker down" is an extra layer of protection. It provides |
| 17 |
> > the sysadmins/users/monitoring software more time to detect the breach. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Removing development tools is one of just a range of security measures. |
| 20 |
> It is by no means the be-all and end-all of security - hence my mention of |
| 21 |
> security in depth. There are easily a couple of dozen security measures I |
| 22 |
> implement when installing a box. Removing development tools (or in most |
| 23 |
> cases, never installing them) is just one of them, but we diverge... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Back to the original question. How do I run a number of gentoo boxes |
| 26 |
> without gcc (or a portage tree)? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -Ronan |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
Archives