From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QoGlF-00080W-Rs for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:20:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9581521C0E8; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:19:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F58421C125 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-238-39.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.238.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9DC71BC004 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:19:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E381579.6010103@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:19:21 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110705 Lightning/1.0b3pre Lanikai/3.1.10 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX capability in Gentoo References: <4E356A0C.7070004@gentoo.org> <4E35B468.10604@gentoo.org> <20110802090832.2cd03a32@pomiocik.lan> <4E3809AA.2050609@gentoo.org> <20110802153134.7cab1727@googlemail.com> <4E380EEA.6080505@gentoo.org> <20110802155454.5fb24cb4@googlemail.com> <4E38123E.90709@gentoo.org> <20110802160554.68059c64@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110802160554.68059c64@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 1df65c6b1908bcabc772faa927a0c1ef On 08/02/2011 11:05 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> Please don't. >> > >> > Why would this be bad? > Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly > screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell > you...). Is rlpkg going behind the PM's back when it does selinux labelings? I know there are difference, but if there's a screwup in some policy, it also leads to horribly screwed up system. Nonetheless, I'm not insensitive to what you are saying, and I think the safer approach would be to write a howto and show the user how to manually convert some typical binaries. There are only a handful that would be targeted. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88 33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535 GnuPG ID : D0455535