On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:15:22AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > My proposal for serving those security-focused users is introducing a > > new architecture targeting amd64 hardware, but with more security > > related C/C++ features turned on for every package (currently hardening > > has to be enabled by the maintainers in some way) through compiler flags > > as a start.
> My take on this: start it if you wish, and see how it takes you. If it > is successful enough, it will go to http://www.debian-ports.org/. If it > has even more success, then probably it will go through the standard > repository and be official part of Debian. Whatever happens, it will be > interesting to see what kind of performance hit you get, and what kind > of security enhancement there is. I would not presume that debian-ports.org would be willing to accept this port without detailed discussion with Debian about what it means to provide a different "port" with the same ABI. The other recent notable port of this kind (changing the compiler defaults without changing the ABI) is Raspbian, which we have not found a way to effectively integrate into the Debian archive. It lives in its own domain, not under debian-ports, because it conflicts with and is unidirectionally incompatible with the existing armhf port. It would be great to see someone tackle the question of "subarchs" for dpkg, which might be a fit here. But I don't imagine that you're going to get signoff on a dpkg "amd64-secure" architecture, so doing this in debian or on debian-ports isn't very practical. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
