| 1 |
On Thu, 2002-01-10 at 17:00, Joachim Blaabjerg wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10 Jan 2002 15:40:40 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Mikael Hallendal <hallski@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Nice! |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I know ;) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > We don't want to add this to all ebuilds not supporting the |
| 11 |
> > secure-stuff. This will be very hard and unmaintainable. Better would be |
| 12 |
> > to create a profile which includes packages and version and then use |
| 13 |
> > that profile for the secured version (thus not making it possible to |
| 14 |
> > install any other packages). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Ah, okay, I see... But what do you think, will there be a USE variable, or |
| 17 |
> something else? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Like Mikael said, you can 'mask' the packages that your |
| 21 |
secure version do not use, so that they are not installeble |
| 22 |
unless forced (after all, it is the user's right to fsck up |
| 23 |
his system/bridge security if he feels like it ;-). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Then for the extra security patches, you could use USE |
| 26 |
variables like you suggested yourself. This will be nothing |
| 27 |
new (look at the 'build' variable for instance ...), and it |
| 28 |
will be cleaner than using eclasses. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Using eclasses to do something like this will complicate |
| 31 |
things too much in my opinion, and each package will be |
| 32 |
different in the way you have to secure it (different patches, |
| 33 |
maybe different ./configure flags, etc). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Anyhow, eclasses are just for KDE and still in |
| 36 |
testing/approval (not that I am one to make this statement ;/) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Greetings, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 44 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer |
| 45 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives