| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Andrew Muraco wrote: |
| 7 |
> | Another thing that I don't like, is the feel of this method does seem |
| 8 |
> | "offical" enough.. mostly because portage is not 'stable'-aware, Its |
| 9 |
> | just using a stripped down tree. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What do you want then? If an entire standalone tree distributed by |
| 12 |
> Gentoo doesn't feel official enough, what will? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
What I meant to say is, having this alternative tree method (as |
| 15 |
described here) would mean that portage would handle everything the |
| 16 |
exact same as it already does, which means that if someother tree was |
| 17 |
accidently sync'd or replaced the local one, portage would react and |
| 18 |
want to update everything, because its not 'aware' that there is a |
| 19 |
difference in the first place. (now that I think about it, how likely is |
| 20 |
it that something like that will happen?) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The method described here would also open up the oppurtunity for "fake" |
| 23 |
enterprise trees, without having something to double check that the tree |
| 24 |
that we have is indeed the one that is wanted, it would be possible for |
| 25 |
a hacked rsync server (or a bogus one) to host the enterprise (stable) |
| 26 |
trees with extra ebuilds which could compromise security (/me thinks of |
| 27 |
emails warning about Microsoft's patchs and links which point to |
| 28 |
infectious websites.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Maybe this is something thats not very likely to happen, but it still is |
| 31 |
important to note that an enterprise tree has to be secure. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Wkr, |
| 34 |
Andrew Muraco |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives