1 |
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 12:39 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera |
3 |
> (klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> El 19/08/17 a las 13:18, Aaron W. Swenson escribió: |
5 |
>>> On 2017-08-19 13:01, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: |
6 |
>>>> El 19/08/17 a las 12:37, Aaron W. Swenson escribió: |
7 |
>>>>> On 2017-08-15 17:01, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: |
8 |
>>>>>> Hi! |
9 |
>>>>>> |
10 |
>>>>>> I'd like to get this one up by Saturday so that we can proceed with |
11 |
>>>>>> masking and removing of the hardened-sources after upstream stopped |
12 |
>>>>>> releasing new patches. |
13 |
>>>>> I hope I’m not too late. |
14 |
>>>>> |
15 |
>>>>>> We'd like to note that all the userspace hardening and MAC support |
16 |
>>>>>> for SELinux provided by Gentoo Hardened will still remain there and |
17 |
>>>>>> is unaffected by this removal. |
18 |
>>>>> Where is there? I think you’re talking about the packages, but the news |
19 |
>>>>> item is about the kernels. It would help to be more specific here. |
20 |
>>>>> |
21 |
>>>>> That’s all I had that the others hadn’t touched on. |
22 |
>>>> Do you think something like that is better then? |
23 |
>>>> |
24 |
>>>> We'd like to note that all the userspace hardening and MAC support |
25 |
>>>> for SELinux provided by Gentoo Hardened will still remain available |
26 |
>>>> on the portage. Keep in mind though that the security provided by |
27 |
>>>> these features will be weakened a bit when using |
28 |
>>>> sys-kernel/gentoo-sources. Also, all PaX related packages other than |
29 |
>>>> the hardened-sources will remain available for the time being. |
30 |
>>>> |
31 |
>>>> |
32 |
>>> Much better. We should mention that we’re specifically discussing |
33 |
>>> packages and not portage itself. At least, that’s my understanding from |
34 |
>>> your edit. |
35 |
>>> |
36 |
>>> Here’s my take on it: |
37 |
>>> |
38 |
>>> We'd like to note that all the userspace hardening and MAC support for |
39 |
>>> SELinux provided by Gentoo Hardened will still remain in the packages |
40 |
>>> found in portage. Keep in mind, though, that the security provided by |
41 |
>>> these features will be weakened a bit when using |
42 |
>>> sys-kernel/gentoo-sources. Also, all PaX related packages, except |
43 |
>>> sys-kernel/hardened-sources, will remain available for the time being. |
44 |
>> |
45 |
>> I updated the news item with your propossal. Thanks a lot :) |
46 |
>> |
47 |
> |
48 |
> The discussion is nice but no one has actually touched on the |
49 |
> technical merits of removing the packages besides "they are old." |
50 |
> There's plenty of old software in portage. Why not remove it first? |
51 |
> |
52 |
> I had a similar issue with the GCC developer who removed GCJ support. |
53 |
> I asked him for any justification at all for the removal and he had |
54 |
> none but some vague statements about it creating work. I would have |
55 |
> taken any more specific example he gave at face value, but he didn't |
56 |
> want to give one. I was left to conclude he didn't have one to give. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> So I ask again: On what basis are the hardened sources being removed |
59 |
> from the tree? |
60 |
> |
61 |
> At this point I am far less interested in making sure the sources stay |
62 |
> in the tree than I am in forcing you to justify your actions, because |
63 |
> I suspect your attempt to do so will be entertaining. |
64 |
> |
65 |
|
66 |
I just had a bad day so perhaps that last bit was a tad blunt. |
67 |
Consider replacing it with this: |
68 |
|
69 |
There is nothing that holds you accountable to me. However, I am |
70 |
honestly trying to understand why you are doing what you are doing and |
71 |
would like you to explain your decision making process to me. If you |
72 |
can't explain it to me, then how do you know that you have selected |
73 |
the best course of action? |
74 |
|
75 |
If it was a matter of opinion I can accept you will probably go "I'm a |
76 |
developer" and then ignore me. However I don't think it has gotten to |
77 |
that point yet, and you are doing the thing being discussed for what |
78 |
seems to be nebulous and poorly defined reasons. |
79 |
|
80 |
R0b0t1. |