| 1 |
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:54:34 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > being able to generate binary packages that actually reflect the |
| 8 |
> > > > live $ROOT is desirable |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Is being able to generate redistributable binary packages that |
| 11 |
> > > reflect the live ROOT desirable? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > that's a feature that exists now that there's no reason to |
| 14 |
> > disable ... not that it can be disabled |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'm not suggesting forcibly disabling it, merely marking binary |
| 17 |
> packages as "designed for distribution" or "not designed for |
| 18 |
> distribution", not accepting the latter on other systems and |
| 19 |
> requiring explicit user action to turn the latter into the former. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for |
| 22 |
> binary packages? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
the use of the binpkg is not an issue, it's the creation ... people blindly |
| 25 |
creating tbz2's which could contain their sensitive files and posting them |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
i'll just go ahead with the feedback from Olivier and have quickpkg skip |
| 28 |
CONFIG_PROTECT by default |
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives