Re: [gentoo-dev] how to handle sensitive files when generating binary packages

[Olivier Crête]

On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 17:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:54:34 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > being able to generate binary packages that actually reflect the
> > > > > live $ROOT is desirable
> > > >
> > > > Is being able to generate redistributable binary packages that
> > > > reflect the live ROOT desirable?
> > >
> > > that's a feature that exists now that there's no reason to
> > > disable ... not that it can be disabled
> >
> > I'm not suggesting forcibly disabling it, merely marking binary
> > packages as "designed for distribution" or "not designed for
> > distribution", not accepting the latter on other systems and
> > requiring explicit user action to turn the latter into the former.
> >
> > The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for
> > binary packages?
>
> the use of the binpkg is not an issue, it's the creation ... people blindly
> creating tbz2's which could contain their sensitive files and posting them
>
> i'll just go ahead with the feedback from Olivier and have quickpkg skip
> CONFIG_PROTECT by default

This will by default create potentially broken packages (since many just
wont work without their CONFIG_PROTECTed files). That's why I suggested
a big fat warning and accepting that we can't protect users against
themselves or against social engineering (aka their own stupidity).

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@g.o
Gentoo Developer