From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I19RH-0005X1-Vv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:18:16 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5KNHEC7004057; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:17:14 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5KNEtpJ001165 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:14:56 GMT Received: from [10.63.3.27] (unknown [63.205.234.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253F06501F for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] how to handle sensitive files when generating binary packages From: Daniel Ostrow To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1182380913.21577.20.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> References: <200706200047.04951.vapier@gentoo.org> <200706201627.27790.vapier@gentoo.org> <20070620213546.0352ca85@snowflake> <200706201654.35042.vapier@gentoo.org> <20070620220142.629252a4@snowflake> <1182378692.21577.4.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <20070620233541.1a3ffa00@snowflake> <1182380913.21577.20.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-qRZhIhZsD4+UrHn9fNEl" Organization: The Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:12:35 -0700 Message-Id: <1182381155.6470.17.camel@ashe.anyarch.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 X-Archives-Salt: 9ddc996d-508b-4347-ac55-dc6b240b89ae X-Archives-Hash: a3b007ecc38a1b57f93b2aae88d9b87d --=-qRZhIhZsD4+UrHn9fNEl Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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? > > >=20 > > > Ever managed a network of multiple Gentoo identical Gentoo machines? > >=20 > > That's one use case, yes. Now what are the others? >=20 > Release building... Backups... Testing newer packages... >=20 > Oh yeah,and who said we really needed more than one use case? I think > providing tools to allow Gentoo to be adopted in the corporate > environment is reason enough to have binary package support, and I feel > that many people will agree with me. >=20 The issue isn't whether or not we should have them, or for that matter whether or not there is more then one use case. The issue is making sure that we know what the use cases are to ensure that the tools we have are flexible enough to be able to support every case and so that we don't paint ourselves into a corner by making decisions before we know how people plan on using the tool. At least that is how I see it... --Dan --=-qRZhIhZsD4+UrHn9fNEl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGebRjsb0gXCN8LgURAkraAJ4iYtTOMAm1PADVS2spW50xEgYC/gCeIbyY qAXiSARJxzqvP4czIPj76g0= =qyyv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-qRZhIhZsD4+UrHn9fNEl-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list