Guillem Jover writes:
> So I think I'll go ahead with the current name for now, it's going to be
> an optional field anyway, so if there's a better name proposed that
> conveys a satisfactory meaning, I'll be happy to consider it and do a
> rename, and handle any users of the current name.
Why
e kernel, but that does
not mean that, say, an oops, was caused by that.
And when it comes to the merged-usr-via-symlinks tag, I actually think
that tainted is really an understatement.
On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 13:35:36 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Tainted builds (was
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Tainted builds (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)"):
> Tainted is a loaded term that may make this more confusing.
Can we think of a better term before `taint' gets embedded ?
It's going to be annoying if we have to have an argument every time we
want to
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Tainted builds (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)"):
> I think I'm still of the opinion that a user should be able to build on
> a normal (clean and up-to-date) system and get a proper result. I guess
> the problem might be how to define "clean".
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:07:42AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> These will detect problematic files under /usr/local which can taint
> the current build.
[...]
> +.B usr\-local\-has\-programs
I regularily have stuff in /usr/local/(s)bin/ which does not taint the
system nor my builds, so I think
Guillem Jover writes:
> … and then I'm not entirely sure a non-minimal environment should be
> qualified as tainted? For example contrast using a minimal but outdated
> installation to a non-minimal, but clean and up-to-date one.
> I think I'm still of the opinion that a user should be able to
On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 16:45:15 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 04:28:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Guillem Jover writes:
> > > Whether a package is being built within a chroot or not, has nothing
> > > to do with how that installation is being managed IMO. It feels a
On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 04:28:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Guillem Jover writes:
Whether a package is being built within a chroot or not, has nothing
to do with how that installation is being managed IMO. It feels a bit
like recording what's the form factor of the machine being run on? :)
Guillem Jover writes:
> Whether a package is being built within a chroot or not, has nothing
> to do with how that installation is being managed IMO. It feels a bit
> like recording what's the form factor of the machine being run on? :)
I think what people are trying to get at here is "was the
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 14:48:32 -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:57:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > This is actually a great idea! I went ahead and implemented this, see
> > attached tentative patch which I'm planning on including in dpkg 1.19.3.
>
> Would you be
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 05:51:35 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> "Only Essential: yes and direct build dependencies installed"? Why not
> extend .buildinfo with the list of all packages installed that aren't
> Essential:yes or build dependencies?
Because that'd have the potential to leak privacy and
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:07:46AM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:02:07PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:48:32PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > > Would you be willing to also implement
> > > Tainted-By: not-built-in-a-chroot
> > > ?
>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:02:07PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:48:32PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Would you be willing to also implement
> > Tainted-By: not-built-in-a-chroot
> > ?
>
> What do you want to do with that? Even our own stuff not always uses
>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:48:32PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Would you be willing to also implement
> Tainted-By: not-built-in-a-chroot
> ?
What do you want to do with that? Even our own stuff not always uses
chroot, why should it?
Bastian
--
Ahead warp factor one, Mr. Sulu.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:40:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 22:13:41 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:48:32PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > > (ischroot(1) is from debianutils which is Essential).
>
> > "On GNU/Linux, chroot detection
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 22:13:41 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:48:32PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > (ischroot(1) is from debianutils which is Essential).
> "On GNU/Linux, chroot detection is not possible when not root."
I think this was just missed as part of
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:48:32PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Would you be willing to also implement
>
> Tainted-By: not-built-in-a-chroot
That doesn't mean anything. You can build in a bad chroot and you can
build in a clean minimal sid system which is not a chroot but a VM.
>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:57:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 07:52:08 +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > Well, the buildd configuration change has been reverted. What worries me now
> > is that there is a risk not yet mitigated, coming from personal systems
Hi!
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 07:52:08 +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Well, the buildd configuration change has been reverted. What worries me now
> is that there is a risk not yet mitigated, coming from personal systems of
> Debian developers, and we should also check porter boxes.
>
> As
19 matches
Mail list logo
