Am Dienstag, 23. August 2016, 10:06:01 schrieb Craig Scott:
> Cheeky way to get me more involved in contributing, but okay, I'll bite. ;)
> Switching discussion to the dev list.
>
> So how would you want the feature to work? I'd suggest an initial set of
> requirements something like the following
Hi Steve!
On Do, 2016-08-18 at 15:37 -0500, Steve Lorimer wrote:
> New to this list, so apologies if it's been discussed before.
>
> I'd like to know why it's not possible to have both debug and release mode
> builds configured at the same time for Unix makefiles?
You can have an arbitrary numbe
Cheeky way to get me more involved in contributing, but okay, I'll bite. ;)
Switching discussion to the dev list.
So how would you want the feature to work? I'd suggest an initial set of
requirements something like the following:
- Need to support the ability to define multiple setup and/or te
Hi Chuck,
> Is this intended to run on Linux?
Yes. And thanks for the pointing out to SELinux. I'll add it to my checklist.
---
The system is on very early stages now, so its parts are changing
rapidly and I'm able to consider different approaches to its
subsystems (including security).
But I p
Hi Egor,
Is this intended to run on Linux? If so, I think you're FAR better off
leveraging an existing security framework like SELinux, since it's actually
designed from the ground up to enforce these types of controls. You could
define a label that you place on the executables run by the package
Hi Egor,
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Egor Pugin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a package manager based on cmake.
Please rethink that approach. Your package manager should support
CMake. It should not be based on it. Your design will be safer and
more flexible.
Cheers, Daniel
--
Powered