On Wed, 2001-09-05 at 19:08, Don Head wrote:
> > > > Already answered to that :
> > > > gather the description from the libsafe homepage.
> > >
> > > perhaps 2 sentences woul be good and help user to leran
> > more about it..
> >
> > Theses two sentences are on the libsafe/freshmeat page and are very
> > descriptive... :
> >
[...]
> I have a complaint about this description: It doesn't
> explain why you would want to disable it or provide any
> useful troubleshooting information to the user should
> they be experiencing the problems people seem to be
> having with libsafe.
>
> Adding another sentence or two similar to the following
> would be preferred:
>
> "... In the past, the libsafe library has been linked
> to application malfunctions, and should therefore be
> disabled as part of the troubleshooting process if you
> are experiencing problems with an application."
1) It's only to be enabled for server.
2) The only problem there was with libsafe was due to libc / libsafe
conflict. But the version of libc / libsafe we're gonna ship
shouldn't have this problem.
> Adding something similiar to the above would not only
> enhance the description, but provide troubleshooting
> information for a user, something that a lot of Linux
> newbies will appreciate. It's also not really
> derrogatory towards libsafe; instead it just points out
> a fact and makes a recommendation. You could say, "Don't
> use this piece of broken cr@p!", but that wouldn't be
> helpful to anyone.
The fact is that libsafe is not a "piece of broken crap".
I think libsafe is very usefull. And may help many, not security aware,
persons.
--
Yoann Vandoorselaere
http://prelude.sourceforge.net
