Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: security updates only? (security-1.0.ebuild)

[Karsten Schulz <kaschu@t800.ping.de>]

Am Samstag, 16. August 2003 12:20 Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Unfortunately dynamic dependencies in this style are not possible.

Why not? Please, could you explain me what will break?
(or show me the lines in ebuild.sh were things will break?)

On my machine the generation of the dependencies work (Portage 2.0.48-r5 
(default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r1)). 
I tried it with my security-1.0.ebuild.
I did some quick tests with several package combinations and the only thing I 
noticed was, that the compile and install stages cause some heavy cpu cycles, 
which I can not explain. (maybe the empty SRC_URI var, but why?)

> I also
> believe that a more fundamental solution should be implemented. Probably in
> emerge itself. 

I agree on that for future developments. But when will that be implemented? I 
tried a simple solution for now. I really like to see an 'security' argument 
like 'system' or 'world' in Portage 2.x.
OTOH I wish to keep server administration simpler now, because easier security 
administration is nothing, which must wait for tomorrow (imho).

>It should not really be hard. It should basically do what
> you propose from a dynamically generated list of insecure ebuilds.

ACK.

Karsten


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list