On Thursday 21 June 2007, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> * dev-java/ibm-jdk-bin-1.5.0.5: package has RESTRICT="fetch/(no)mirror"!
> * dev-java/ibm-jdk-bin-1.5.0.5: it may not be legal to redistribute this.
this is incorrect ... while USE=bindist has an exact 1-to-1 correlation with
the legality of bu
Hi!
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:31:32 -0700
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for
> > > binary packages?
> >
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:04 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
Do potential licensing/copyright issues like these factor into your
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
>>> Do potential licensing/copyright issues like these factor into your
>>> proposal in any way?
>> no, that's an exercise for th
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:04 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
> > > Do potential licensing/copyright issues like these factor into your
> > > proposal in any way?
> >
> > no, that's an exercise for the
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
>>> Do potential licensing/copyright issues like these factor into your
>>> proposal in any way?
>> no, that's an exercise for the user and no one else ... there's no way i'd
>
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
> > Do potential licensing/copyright issues like these factor into your
> > proposal in any way?
>
> no, that's an exercise for the user and no one else ... there's no way i'd
> have the tools prevent
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
> Do potential licensing/copyright issues like these factor into your
> proposal in any way?
no, that's an exercise for the user and no one else ... there's no way i'd
have the tools prevent this. about the only thing i'd add is a reminder
message
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:19:46 -0500
> Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that's really a feasible solution (but then you probably
>> weren't suggesting it with that intention). Being able to create a
>> "backup" of any installed package without re-emer
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:50 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Well, I often use quickpkg when I want to try a new version of a
> > > package (I quickpkg the currently installed one.. and I want to keep
> > > all the config files). Then I emerge
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:08:33 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's one use case, yes. Now what are the others?
>
> Release building... Backups... Testing newer packages...
Now expand upon those.
> Oh yeah,and who said we really needed more than one use case?
If you make y
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:08 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:31:32 -0700
> > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > The specific underlyi
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:50 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Well, I often use quickpkg when I want to try a new version of a package
> > (I quickpkg the currently installed one.. and I want to keep all the
> > config files). Then I emerge the new one, and I absolutely want to be
> > able to restor
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:31:32 -0700
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for
> > > binary packages?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> what are the use cases for binary packages?
Apart from those already mentioned by Chris, I use FEATURES=buildpkg to
be able to recover from a catastrophic experiment with a package's
content, for being able to quickly reinstall it. Although it's lame,
it's pretty easy to r
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 18:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 17:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > the use of the binpkg is not an issue, it's the creation ... people
>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:31:32 -0700
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for
>>> binary packages?
>> Ever managed a network of multiple Ge
On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 18:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 17:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > the use of the binpkg is not an issue, it's the creation ... people
> > > blindly creating tbz2's which could contain their s
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:31:32 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for
> > binary packages?
>
> Ever managed a network of multiple Gentoo identical Gentoo mach
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for
> binary packages?
Ever managed a network of multiple Gentoo identical Gentoo machines?
Compiling the exact same packages with the exact same
USE/C(XX)FLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc o
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 17:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 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 wi
On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 17:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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]> wr
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases
> > > > > for binary packages?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:38:22 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases
> > > > for binary packages?
> > >
> > > the use of t
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 15:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > mayhaps we need a new function to be run in src_install() to label
> > > > files as "sensi
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 15:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > mayhaps we need a new function to be run in src_install() to label
> > > files as "sensitive" ... so baselayout would do:
> > > esosensitive
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:19:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 sensi
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 ref
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 15:53 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>
> This still allows the social engineering attack. Someone can get a binpkg
> created with quickpkg of someone else's baselayout and then remove the
> marking
> that would make portage gripe.
That's providing people pay attention to por
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:18 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>
> It would probably be prudent to have pristine versions of the files
> installed on the system (optional) so that you can actually create
> binary packages with all the files.
If we go that direction we could have like a --live flag to q
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 t
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:48:50 -0400
Olivier Crête <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 21:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:27:27 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > being able to generate binary packages that actually reflect the
> > > l
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'
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:19:46 -0500
Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure that's really a feasible solution (but then you probably
weren't suggesting it with that intention). Being able to create a
"backup" of any installed package without re-emerging is pr
On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 21:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:27:27 -0400
> 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
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:27:27 -0400
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?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signatur
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> > On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> mayhaps we need a new function to be run in src_install() to label
> >>> files as "sensitive" ... so baselayout would do
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:19:46 -0500
Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that's really a feasible solution (but then you probably
> weren't suggesting it with that intention). Being able to create a
> "backup" of any installed package without re-emerging is pretty
> handy. Many p
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > no reason to write off something critical like this when it can be
> > addressed
>
> It can be addressed by banning binary package creation off an
> installed filesystem.
there's no fun in that
-mike
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:07:07 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no reason to write off something critical like this when it can be
addressed
It can be addressed by banning binary package creation off an
installed filesystem.
I'm not sure that's really a fe
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> mayhaps we need a new function to be run in src_install() to label
>>> files as "sensitive" ... so baselayout would do:
>>> esosensitive /etc/{fstab,group,passwd,shadow}
>>> a
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:07:07 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no reason to write off something critical like this when it can be
> addressed
It can be addressed by banning binary package creation off an
installed filesystem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP s
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 00:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > there are many files out there that contain critical information about
> > your system ...
> >
> > however, there are certainly cases where the admin fully knows what
> > they're doing and
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > mayhaps we need a new function to be run in src_install() to label
> > files as "sensitive" ... so baselayout would do:
> > esosensitive /etc/{fstab,group,passwd,shadow}
> > and then we expand the format
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:15:20 +0200
Matthias Schwarzott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> >
> > I will claim that almost any file in /etc is potentially sensitive
> > (even if it does not contain passwords, if may contain other
> > informations interest
On Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> I will claim that almost any file in /etc is potentially sensitive (even
> if it does not contain passwords, if may contain other informations
> interesting to a cracker). And even if we did what you propose, we'd run
> the risk of missing some a
On Wed, 2007-20-06 at 00:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> there are many files out there that contain critical information about your
> system ...
> however, there are certainly cases where the admin fully knows what they're
> doing and they want to create a binary package of their system with
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:47:04 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mayhaps we need a new function to be run in src_install() to label
> files as "sensitive" ... so baselayout would do:
> esosensitive /etc/{fstab,group,passwd,shadow}
> and then we expand the format of CONTENTS in the vd
Mike Frysinger wrote:
any other potential ideas ? (pretend my idea here isnt the greatest thing
since Robot Chicken)
Lies...nothing is better than Robot Chicken!
--
Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Inst
there are many files out there that contain critical information about your
system ... lets look at /etc/shadow
baselayout installs this file, yet it is not listed in CONTENTS for a very
good reason ... if someone were to run `quickpkg baselayout` and post the
file somewhere, they could easily
51 matches
Mail list logo
