On 04/01/2022 20.18, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 19:26 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
And none of which happens unless you intentionally trigger it.
...
Sure, acl and how chmod manipulate mask on ACL-enabled entities is not
very simple, but nothing will break by itself
On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 19:26 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> And none of which happens unless you intentionally trigger it.
>
> ...
>
> Sure, acl and how chmod manipulate mask on ACL-enabled entities is not
> very simple, but nothing will break by itself just because you have acl
> support
Hi,
On 04/01/2022 18.35, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 12:03 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
I disagree with the claim that "most people" should disable ACL
support at build time. That just gives you partially functional tools.
The ACL behavior can generally be controlled using
On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 12:03 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> I disagree with the claim that "most people" should disable ACL
> support at build time. That just gives you partially functional tools.
> The ACL behavior can generally be controlled using runtime options.
I understand why people would
Hi,
On 04/01/2022 18.03, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:31 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 03:38 +, Sam James wrote:
ACL is kind of similar to what Ionen said for PAM, i.e. sometimes
people may want to turn it off and it makes sense to expose
this option
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:31 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 03:38 +, Sam James wrote:
> >
> > ACL is kind of similar to what Ionen said for PAM, i.e. sometimes
> > people may want to turn it off and it makes sense to expose
> > this option for those who do, but we don't
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 7:39 PM Sam James wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3 Jan 2022, at 17:16, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I'm trying to understand your principles here. Like on what basis do
> you remove or add flags (in general).
>
> I want to remove:
> - bash-completion
>
>
> FWIW, I've managed to
On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 03:38 +, Sam James wrote:
>
> ACL is kind of similar to what Ionen said for PAM, i.e. sometimes
> people may want to turn it off and it makes sense to expose
> this option for those who do, but we don't need to try support it.
>
This is another important one. It has
> On 3 Jan 2022, at 17:16, Alec Warner wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> I'm trying to understand your principles here. Like on what basis do
> you remove or add flags (in general).
>
> I want to remove:
> - bash-completion
FWIW, I've managed to remove basically all instances of {bash,zsh}-completion
and
> On 4 Jan 2022, at 00:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-01-03 at 21:29 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps the 'pam' example was extreme, but ipv6, or threads as Sam
>> shared, does not make sense to be togglable.
>>
>
> Many packages need their ipv6 code disabled if the
On Mon, 2022-01-03 at 16:51 -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> >
> >
> > Many packages need their ipv6 code disabled if the kernel has no ipv6
> > support, and enabling ipv6 in the kernel is a pointless security risk
> > for pretty much anyone in the United States.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:29 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-01-03 at 21:29 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the 'pam' example was extreme, but ipv6, or threads as Sam
> > shared, does not make sense to be togglable.
> >
>
> Many packages need their ipv6 code disabled if
On Mon, 2022-01-03 at 21:29 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> Perhaps the 'pam' example was extreme, but ipv6, or threads as Sam
> shared, does not make sense to be togglable.
>
Many packages need their ipv6 code disabled if the kernel has no ipv6
support, and enabling ipv6 in the kernel is a
Hi,
On 03/01/2022 18.16, Alec Warner wrote:
I'm trying to understand your principles here. Like on what basis do
you remove or add flags (in general).
My principals is to end-user experience over exposing as much as
possible as USE flags.
A real life example
media-sound/deadbeef
The
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 12:16 PM Alec Warner wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 2:22 PM Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to get some insight how others see the concept of narrowing the
> > scope of USE flags in Gentoo.
> >
> > Taking a quote from devmanual:
> >
> >> USE
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 2:22 PM Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to get some insight how others see the concept of narrowing the
> scope of USE flags in Gentoo.
>
> Taking a quote from devmanual:
>
>> USE flags are to control optional dependencies and settings which
> the user may
On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:21:40PM +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> As example I'd like to use 'ipv6' USE flag, at the moment of writing
> this email there's 351 ebuilds in tree that expose ipv6 as USE flag,
> allow it to be disabled.
This is a flag I've usually been removing when I touch a
On 2022.01.02 07:33, Sam James wrote:
>
[snip]
> Note that having USE flags for things, even if forced on/masked (for
> the opposite case) is useful for building embedded systems. So, if you
> wanted to go this route, a sensible
> first step would actually be forcing PAM on. But I don't think
Hi,
On 02/01/2022 01.03, Scott Ellis wrote:
Your `ipv6` USE flag hits home - I don't use IPv6, nor do I want to have
IPv6 support built into things (just another potential "thing" that I have
to secure, or errors/warnings I need to suppress since I run an IPv6-less
kernel).
If there needs to
> On 2 Jan 2022, at 00:03, Scott Ellis wrote:
>
> Your `ipv6` USE flag hits home - I don't use IPv6, nor do I want to have IPv6
> support built into things (just another potential "thing" that I have to
> secure, or errors/warnings I need to suppress since I run an IPv6-less
> kernel).
>
>
> On 2 Jan 2022, at 04:28, Blake Bartenbach wrote:
>
> On Sat Jan 1, 2022 at 4:21 PM CST, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>> The thing is, it's 2022, and it does not make any sense to *not* support
>> IPv6, even if one does not connect to any network with IPv6, there's no
>> harm to just have it there.
> On 1 Jan 2022, at 22:21, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to get some insight how others see the concept of narrowing the
> scope of USE flags in Gentoo.
>
> Taking a quote from devmanual:
>
> > USE flags are to control optional dependencies and settings which the user
> may
On Sat Jan 1, 2022 at 4:21 PM CST, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> I'd like to focus on the 'reasonably want' here.
>
I find that words like "reasonable" are generally useless. The issue
is, it's completely subjective. Do you think the average
person would think that using Gentoo is reasonable for their
Your `ipv6` USE flag hits home - I don't use IPv6, nor do I want to have
IPv6 support built into things (just another potential "thing" that I have
to secure, or errors/warnings I need to suppress since I run an IPv6-less
kernel).
If there needs to be a path to culling USE flags, perhaps looking
Hi,
I'd like to get some insight how others see the concept of narrowing the
scope of USE flags in Gentoo.
Taking a quote from devmanual:
> USE flags are to control optional dependencies and settings which
the user may reasonably want to select.
I'd like to focus on the 'reasonably
25 matches
Mail list logo
