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 1I19Uy-0007zp-PV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:22:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5KNL6aW007830; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:21:06 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5KNJ8w7005466 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:19:08 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8088D3F8 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:37:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20225-02 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:37:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from snowflake (82-41-57-20.cable.ubr08.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [82.41.57.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF16B8D305 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:37:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:18:37 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] how to handle sensitive files when generating binary packages Message-ID: <20070621001837.6335c894@snowflake> 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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.2 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_G5Tbb=cfE0L4jI3UYMIWH5r"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: 9bbcce2f-a17b-4233-9a25-995ed12b3fa6 X-Archives-Hash: 5010b44dd65d596c69d51be7938154f1 --Sig_G5Tbb=cfE0L4jI3UYMIWH5r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:08:33 -0700 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > That's one use case, yes. Now what are the others? >=20 > 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 your design decisions based upon a single use case, your design will probably suck when people try to use it for anything else. Since people clearly are using binary packages for at least three different things, all of those three things need to be considered. > 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. You miss my point. I'm not saying binaries are useless. I'm saying you should establish all of what they're used for before making changes. A change that improves binary packages for one use case may make them less ideal for others. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_G5Tbb=cfE0L4jI3UYMIWH5r Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGebXN96zL6DUtXhERAhIhAJ0WIiBrwCTuHDWsJ1s0+mBjV3syvQCgz7Jw 17iC+5fU8KULQNz26Cq3inA= =ScO4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_G5Tbb=cfE0L4jI3UYMIWH5r-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list