Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Martin Schlemmer <azarah@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed security policy for web-based apps
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:01:33
Message-Id: 1120820325.27435.32.camel@lycan.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed security policy for web-based apps by "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
1 On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 11:58 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
2 > On Wednesday 06 July 2005 20:10, Radoslaw Stachowiak wrote:
3 > > Why only web-based apps? What about other tools and apps exposed to the
4 > > network?
5 > Webapps are simpler to install to base users, they are generally just a
6 > "extract, change perms, execute php stuff".
7 > Other stuff is quite more difficult, and sometime you don't have new security
8 > bugs while upstream is away or dead. If all the "upstream away for more than
9 > 3 months" or "upstream dead, package works like a charm" will be removed in a
10 > couple of months from portage, users will start complaining.
11 > And I cannot say I would disagrees with them.
12
13 Stupid question .. why does webapps.eclass have SLOT=${PVR} ? This
14 basically means that even a bump from foo-webapp-1.0-r1 to
15 foo-webapp-1.0-r2 will not unmerge foo-webapp-1.0-r1 ... Why do you
16 want every version, never mind every revision slotted?
17
18
19 Thanks,
20
21 --
22 Martin Schlemmer
23 Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
24 Cape Town, South Africa

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed security policy for web-based apps Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o>