[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni posted <1096321571.15324.16.camel@×××××××××××××××××.net>,
excerpted below,  on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:46:11 -0400:

> profiles

OK, now that contradicts what Nic Jones said, that it should be singular,
/etc/portage/profile.  Which is is?

BTW, I see someone referring to /etc/portage/virtuals again today, and
that's the whole thing that raised the question about profile or profiles,
since portage complained that the direct under portage virtuals location
was depreciated (I like to put placeholder files in place, so I don't
have to go digging up the info when I need it, I just go edit my
placeholder file, so I created /etc/portage/virtuals immediately after
switching to .51 as I'd seen it mentioned, and had portage squawk about
it) and said I should use profiles/virtuals instead, but then I saw a
reference for another file to profile/*, and wondered if they were the
same dir with a typo in one, or whether both really WERE looked for.

>> QA Notice: Security risk /usr/bin/crontab. Please consider relinking with
>> 'append-ldflags -Wl,-z,now' to fix.
>>
>> What's this mean?  What are the implications?
>
> Actually, that is more a message for the developer.  You can perform the
> same function locally with the LDFLAGS variable in your make.conf, but
> really the package should be fixed by the developer by adding the
> "append-ldflags -Wl,-z,now" to the ebuilds, as stated by the emerge
> process.  This has all been since sfperms was added to the default
> FEATURES.

Thanks.  That makes sense.  Now I have what I need to fix it. As you
agreed, tho, even if it's meant primarily for the developer, security risk
messages without equally clear how-to-fix messages aren't really where
Gentoo should be. <g>

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list