Re: [gentoo-dev] USE="acl" in profiles

[Ned Ludd]

On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 09:13, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 12:41, Benjamin Judas wrote:
> > There is a slight problem regarding the USE-Settings in the profiles:
> >
> > GRP_STAGE23_USE="ipv6 pam tcpd readline nls ssl gpm perl python berkdb acl ncurses"
> >
> > As you can see, this defines acl. Now:
> >
> > USE="x86 oss apm arts avi berkdb bitmap-fonts crypt cups encode foomaticdb gdbm
> > gif gpm gtk gtk2 imlib jpeg kde gnome libg++ libwww mad mikmod motif mpeg ncurses
> > nls oggvorbis opengl pam pdflib png python qt quicktime readline sdl slang spell
> > ssl svga tcpd truetype X xml2 xmms xprint xv zlib"
> >
> > This doesn't define acl.
> >
> > This could break things if users don't set USE="acl" on bootstrap/emerge system.
> > Possible solutions could be to either remove acl from GRP_STAGE23_USE or add it to
> > USE. The first solution would cause everybody using acl to not be able to install without
> > any problems. Putting it into USE would cause an overhead for everybody. The overhead
> > doesn't seem to be that big, but...well...it's an overhead.
> >
> > What do you think about it and how do you think this should be solved?
>
> We should not remove the ability to install using acl.  I also think
> that it is required for somethings (hardened?) and should stay.  I think
> my main problem is I don't understand how the situation is broken.
> Could you perhaps paint a better picture for me (and all the other
> devs)?


drop it++ 

Some USE flags almost need maintainers (and this is one of them). There
are special patches that have to be applied to packages that don't seem
to be going upstream. Sometimes these are patches that conflict with the
natural course of upgrading/version bumps of packages and the complete
logic has to be reworked. When these conflicts happen where the acl flag
conflicts said patches are simply dropped. So I'm thinking that a full
bootstrap is currently only half arse with USE=acl and not a complete
solution.

If somebody/existing dev is willing to take on the responsibility for
said flag then hey great leave it in the stages but as is it's
incomplete as I've pointed out.

And as josh has pointed out hardened does not need it in anyway shape or
form.

Furthermore it's quite a confusing USE flag name to begin with. 
What's it really needed for?

Gentoo supports atleast 3 types of access control systems that I can
think of so not sure why this one has to be so descriptive.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer