From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20991 invoked by uid 1002); 7 Sep 2003 23:35:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 22746 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2003 23:35:03 -0000 From: Jan Krueger Organization: microgalaxy.net To: Jon Portnoy Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 01:40:32 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: azarah@gentoo.org, Gentoo-Dev , Thomas de Grenier de Latour References: <200309072234.06470.jk@microgalaxy.net> <20030907203546.GA6996@cerberus.oppresses.us> In-Reply-To: <20030907203546.GA6996@cerberus.oppresses.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309080140.32886.jk@microgalaxy.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] suggestion portage ebuild system file modification rights and protection X-Archives-Salt: 096d45bf-1fa1-428b-aa5d-31e776c0dbd2 X-Archives-Hash: 6c1189ede28ba2b423860ac7e4863b7e On Sunday 07 September 2003 20:35, Jon Portnoy wrote: > What, that any situation involving installing software is going to have > security holes? That's the nature of software installation. Installing software at the end comes down to putting files at the right place. (on windows you would add: modifying the registry) So thats exactly what portage should do: put files at the right place. The ebuilds may play in the sandbox whatever game they like. It should however in no way possible for them to wipe your box. You agree? Jan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list