Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 03:52:20
1 OK, I've been running portage 2.0.51-whatever for several releases, and
2 it's certainly beginning to shape up nicely! Here are some
3 comments/questions/suggestions, FWTW..
5 1) The new "spinner" is /very/ cool!
7 Some of the phrases, however, are a bit difficult to make out, as the
8 scanning is a bit to fast to read (at least on my dual opteron). Could a
9 couple more letters be lit up at the same time? Just from observation (not
10 looking at the code), it appears one letter is lit at "bright", the ones
11 on each side same color (green), but without the brite attribute. Maybe
12 make double that to two letters brite, two on each side normal.. or maybe
13 three.
15 Anyway, it's a /very/ cool feature! Whoever came up with the idea and if
16 the idea was borrowed from elsewhere, whoever decided it'd be cool for
17 portage to have it also, I AGREE! Major kudos! It immediately impressed
18 me!
20 2) Documentation is coming alone nicely.
22 It's nice to see updated 2.0.51 versions of the various man pages, now.
24 I'm seeing a couple things missing still, tho. The main one I noticed was
25 the portage (5) manpage doesn't list the new /etc/portage/profile yet.
26 Also, an earlier einfo mentioned /etc/portage/profiles/virtuals while the
27 new inject depreciated message mentions
28 /etc/portage/profile/package.provided. I assume these are supposed to
29 both be the same dir, but don't know whether it's profile or profiles.
30 Granted, a typo or changed policy is fine, but without documentation
31 confirming one or the other as right, I'm left guessing.
33 3) What about the QA Notices?
35 Evidently .51 is rather stricter in some things than .50 and a number of
36 things are QA Notices now that were silent, before. Are things to the
37 point where it's worthwhile bugging the various ebuilds that emit these
38 notices, illegal eclass inheritance and the like, or are there still
39 enough of them it'd just be unnecessary noise?
41 What about that security notice I've seen pop up a few times? Example:
43 QA Notice: Security risk /usr/bin/crontab. Please consider relinking with
44 'append-ldflags -Wl,-z,now' to fix.
46 What's this mean? What are the implications? How do I do that relinking
47 if I decide I need to? Can I fix it by enabling a feature in make.conf
48 or do I run a separate command? Either way, there's not enough info there
49 to actually DO it, nor do I even have enough info to rightly evaluate the
50 "security risk"!
52 There's simply not enough there to be anything but a teaser, yet it's
53 labeled security risk. Someone's being *MEAN* with their teasing! =:^\
55 --
56 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
57 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
58 temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
59 Benjamin Franklin
63 --
64 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions Anthony Gorecki <anthony@××××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions Nicholas Jones <carpaski@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>