1 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:49:01 -0500 Joshua Brindle <method@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
| >GLEP 34 (category metadata) [1] is now fully implemented. Well, I say |
5 |
| >fully. Actually, it isn't, since I don't have write access to the |
6 |
| >sec-policy directory. |
7 |
| > |
8 |
| With good reason.. |
9 |
|
10 |
What, you're still claiming that the hardened project has 'grown beyond' |
11 |
Gentoo? *shrug* if you want to make yourselves out as a different |
12 |
distribution from the rest of us then that's fine by me. I'd be more |
13 |
than happy to completely ignore anything to do with selinux if you |
14 |
prefer -- it'd halve the time it takes me to bump certain packages. |
15 |
|
16 |
| Don't care or read what? Most developers can't track of -dev even a |
17 |
| little, if something mandatory was suppose to be done certainly it |
18 |
| should have been said on -core and then directly to people who have to |
19 |
| do it themselves (hardened), Getting on -dev and defaming us just |
20 |
| makes you look like an ass. |
21 |
|
22 |
I had a metadata.xml file written out for sec-policy and everything, but |
23 |
thanks to those utterly pointless CVS restrictions I couldn't commit it. |
24 |
|
25 |
Really, what's the reason behind keeping the lock in place, other than |
26 |
that it makes you feel special? As you've seen, I and several others who |
27 |
aren't part of your elite posse have entirely legitimate reasons for |
28 |
touching things in there on occasion. We all already have more than |
29 |
enough access to totally kill the tree anyway (including being able to |
30 |
force an overwrite of anything installed by sec-policy/*), so you can't |
31 |
claim security. |
32 |
|
33 |
*shrug* Maybe you should just switch to using your own tree rather than |
34 |
trusting anything that's coming from us mere mortals. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) |
38 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
39 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |