Re: Security project meeting summary

Robert Buchholz <[email protected]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:42:41 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.gentoo.security
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Monday 21 July 2008, Aleksey V Lazar wrote:
> Hello.  Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or
> something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security
> reasons?

Hi Aleksey,

since entries package.mask only contain free text description as an 
additional information, such a feature would require the package 
manager to decide which entries are security maskings, and which are 
feature maskings. While that could be done using 
restrictions/conventions within the text, I am sure our package manager 
developers would disagree with such a design. A "package.security.mask" 
file might be more appropriate for that.

My question now is, why would you want such a thing? Masked packages all 
have different reasons to be there, and you should decide to use one on 
a case-by-case basis.

Regards,
Robert

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 835 B)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
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=KMTY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----