| 1 |
Pierre-Yves Rofes wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, July 21, 2008 9:04 pm, Aleksey V Lazar wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Hello. Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or |
| 5 |
>> something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security reasons? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Thanks. |
| 8 |
>> Aleksey |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Hello, |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> by "~security" you mean a keyword like ~x86 ? It's not a hardware |
| 15 |
> architecture, so it wouldn't make much sense. But having a way to list |
| 16 |
> masked packages for security reasons is indeed a good idea. The problem |
| 17 |
> is finding how to do it "the right way". |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> -- |
| 21 |
> Pierre-Yves Rofes |
| 22 |
> Gentoo Linux Security Team |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
I was thinking more along the lines of adding a special mark to the list |
| 26 |
that currently includes "~", "+" and "M". Let's say it would be "!". |
| 27 |
This mark could then be used for package versions with security |
| 28 |
problems. I don't know if this is technically possible, but I could see |
| 29 |
"!" used in conjunction with the "~", "+" or "M" to alert/indicate a |
| 30 |
security issue, like "~!", or "+!" or "M!". I think this is what I meant. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Thanks. |
| 33 |
Aleksey |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Aleksey V. Lazar |
| 37 |
Website Development |
| 38 |
Memorial Library 3010 |
| 39 |
Minnesota State University |
| 40 |
Mankato, MN 56001 |
| 41 |
http://www.mnsu.edu/ |
| 42 |
Tel.: 1-507-389-2480 |
Archives