| 1 |
On Sunday 07 November 2004 20:06, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 12:19 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 07 November 2004 05:56, Joshua Brindle wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > perhaps some motivation for portage devs.... |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > See bug #26110 |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > The bug was originally about versioning eclasses, which has very little |
| 9 |
> > to do with adding a trojan. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> As long as there are no eclass versions they can be modified without any |
| 12 |
> checks detecting it. That was one of the things the original poster |
| 13 |
> found to be very lacking since it even allows for "evil" eclasses. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Bah.. I don't know why I even bothered answering this in the first place. Oh, |
| 16 |
right, yeah. My point was that this shouldn't be pinned on the portage team. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Versioning of eclasses has absolutely nothing to do with portage. Do you use |
| 19 |
eclasses? Do they have versions? Why not? As far as I can tell, the only |
| 20 |
people to have decided upon using versioned eclasses are the kernel team. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The real problem is the general apathy toward many issues. Many people like me |
| 23 |
just say "it's not my fault" and many people like you say "well, somebody has |
| 24 |
to do it" but don't actually step up to the plate. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The truth of the matter, as far as I can see, is that nobody cares enough |
| 27 |
about this issue to put the effort into planning, coordinating and executing |
| 28 |
a given solution. Somebody, please prove me wrong. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives