[gentoo-dev] Re: how to handle sensitive files when generating binary packages

[Steve Long]

>> Oh yeah,and who said we really needed more than one use case?  I think
>> providing tools to allow Gentoo to be adopted in the corporate
>> environment is reason enough to have binary package support, and I feel
>> that many people will agree with me.
>>
Well I'm sure you'll be over the moon to know I do ;)
>
> The issue isn't whether or not we should have them, or for that matter
> whether or not there is more then one use case. The issue is making sure
> that we know what the use cases are to ensure that the tools we have are
> flexible enough to be able to support every case and so that we don't
> paint ourselves into a corner by making decisions before we know how
> people plan on using the tool.
>
Agreed, but the actual mechanism in question is only adds functionality;
nothing is being taken away aiui. As to it borking use cases, surely it's
better to explain which use case it breaks than get into a nitpick about
whether there might be any others. After all that's why there's an
externally-facing list: so people can chime in with their concerns.

The discussion on default policy doesn't change the fact that it is a needed
mechanism, imo. Having it as a switch in FEATURES makes a lot of sense, and
i think that ensuring Gentoo systems won't leak sensitive information,
unless explicitly told to, is a worthwhile objective. A warning when adding
sensitive files to a binpkg seems like a wise idea, especially if it is a
set and forget flag. (Devs can always tweak an env var, users who've lost
data are harder to mollify.)


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list