Re: [Proposal] binaries must not have rpath outside /usr/lib//

2005-11-30 Thread Ian Jackson
Bill Allombert writes ("[Proposal] binaries must not have rpath outside /usr/lib//"): > 3) rpath to the build environment: this can be a security hole on > a system where per chance the path lead to a user writable directory. Any package like that is of course definitely wrong, and we don't need

Re: [Proposal] binaries must not have rpath outside /usr/lib//

2005-11-30 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:04:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Bill Allombert writes ("[Proposal] binaries must not have rpath outside > /usr/lib//"): > > 3) rpath to the build environment: this can be a security hole on > > a system where per chance the path lead to a user writable directory. >

Re: Add Debian revision number standards to policy?

2005-11-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:40:29PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Currently versions sort the following way: > >> 1.2-3 > >> 1.2-3sarge1 > >> 1.2-3.0.1 > >> 1.2-3.1 > >> As you can see the binNMU sorts after the security release while it > >>

Re: [Proposal] binaries must not have rpath outside /usr/lib//

2005-11-30 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Ian Jackson wrote: > Just as one example, a program might reasonably have an rpath in > /usr/local/lib//. And there might be other reasons why Not in Debian, it doesn't. Since policy is about Debian *packages*, and Debian cannot ship much more than empty dirs under /usr/loca

Re: GNUstep and FHS

2005-11-30 Thread Hubert Chan
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:50:47 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi Hubert, > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:16:03PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote: >> I've done some work on making the GNUstep core packages more FHS >> compliant, and I'd like some input to make sure that I have addressed >> a