archaic at indy.rr.com
Fri Jan 2 20:24:19 PST 2004
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:52:44PM -0500, ashes wrote:
> I can agree with good reasons to keep fsf binutils.
What about the test errors. I know you've mentioned using
-fno-stack-protector cures one or more, but does it fix all? If not, is
there a patch that will fix them? IIRC, binutils has a static linking
bug. How is that going to be resolved, or is it of any real concern?
> Syslog daemons are only like 150kb compressed source,
I was just an example.
> There's no reason we should strictly use lfs packages, if we can find
> good quality syslog or even telnet clients that support encryption,
> they should get good consideration.
I'm not saying use strictly LFS packages. I'm just saying we need to
decide with prudence any package that is on the table for replacement.
IOW, we can't just say package X is great, let's use it. We have to say
package X has a functionality or security feature we really need, and
there is no way to make package Y have it. My guess, and my hope, would
be that most packages won't need to be changed.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be
exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I
like a little rebellion now and then.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787
More information about the hlfs-dev