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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-46854-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1QoGgx-0005yB-Vn
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:15:36 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4A6821C11C;
Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:15:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C65D21C0EB
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:15:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so2674764wyh.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=wpxjo0T0pwWSEXE0sMD78I/2ZUsHFNgI99TFy7f78bs=;
b=gvYXQ40mI8Noz+050EiF3nSQ9iNhr2IbcZ3VSW/efdFfzBaSWcsLG2SnTSGqrc4YGv
kbWwTj0ho6YvO4qeStcItEXtLZTZNc26PZ0Vd/PPsDgTmy0YdXa86ByQd62Q6f1/IA9h
1ENCCc04sqbFRa+k4i2MzEMrxV2jxEtG11Zog=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.61.10 with SMTP id r10mr7241417wbh.74.1312298102371; Tue,
02 Aug 2011 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.227.142.19 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E38123E.90709@gentoo.org>
References: <4E356A0C.7070004@gentoo.org>
<CADqQcK4RL8bWessPds+4sHa7TLR3Fj0-T68WEiuZK+Lo1oroew@mail.gmail.com>
<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>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:15:02 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _tX7XGfN-Y39hVw8mZXLnARuV58
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_mEpr2tdhLZqgioJ3Lr8qFhHHsYE82vq1KLD=gV6WPXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX capability in Gentoo
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: cdd19d4427782bfa5c7d033fa202195c
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 10:54 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> > I was thinking something even dirtier, something outside of the PMS
>>> > altogether, along the lines of what one does when converting to a
>>> > selinux system where one relabels the entire filesystem with rlpkg.
>>> > So no, not something via pkg_postinst().
>> Please don't.
> Why would this be bad?
Something that comes to mind would be the inability to systematically
verify the installed system. We obviously don't currently store posix
capabilities the way we store mtimes and hashes, but I would think
that this would just be one more part of the EAPI if we properly
define it.
That said, I don't see manual scripts outside of portage being a
possible workaround, but it should probably only be used
experimentally.
Rich