On 08/26/2012 05:58, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:

> The is the longer plan but this with also true with pkg_add -r, and the pkg
> bootstrap may it be pkg-bootstrap or /usr/sbin/pkg. We have been discussing 
> with
> Security officers and we are waiting for the plan being written and setup by
> them, so we can improved security in both pkgng and the bootstrap. This should
> have happen in BSDCan, but lack of time from everyone, didn't made it happen, 
> we
> are now aiming at Cambridge DevSummit for that.

It would be nice if this were in place before 10-current shifted to pkg
by default in order to limit the number of times that we have to start
testing over from scratch.

> Given that such a security issue is already in with the current pkg_* tools, 
> it
> was accepting that we can still go that way until the policy is written, given
> that the final goal is to have the pkgng package checked against a signature.

This isn't the security issue I was talking about by having sbin/pkg
pass every command line to local/sbin/pkg.

You keep saying that you have no objections to changing the name. I am
asking you to do that. I don't care if it is pkg-bootstrap or something
else you like better. But please change the name to not be pkg, and
limit the functionality of the tool to bootstrapping the pkg package.



    I am only one, but I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do
    something.  And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
    I can do.
                        -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to