On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:54:34 -0400 > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
