upcomming 0.2 release
robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Jan 8 11:45:32 PST 2005
On January 8, 2005 10:26 am, Archaic wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:22:33AM -0500, Robert Connolly wrote:
> > uClibc still has its advantages. You can install just want you need
> > with uClibc, where as with Glibc you need to install everything.
> > uClibc was made to be small while supporting almost everything. This
> > causes both advantages and disadvantages.
> But we should seriously considering weighing the goals of writing a book
> with the goals of producing super customized, highly individualized
> operating system.
I don't think anyone here wants it to get out of hand. We are trying to escape
the bloat of distributions, not make another one. But, that said, the uClibc
folks aren't providing a way to hardened their buildroot, they're leaving it
up to someone else. Selinux doesn't maintain patches anymore, they are making
distributors do it. To an extent I think this is the void we were trying to
> > Until then I would like to add as much as we can.. selinux patches,
> > blowfish passwords, etc, optionally of course.
> At some point we have to solidify what the base will be so we can start
> actually making the system useful, i.e. server applications.
RBAC is another thing we have choices for. Since the kernel is already being
patched with Grsec, its seems logical to use Grsec's rbac too. But Grsec's
rbac can be applied to beyond-hlfs, while selinux needs to be patched into
several core applications. Selinux is the one people will need the most help
with. I would rather do this before services because it affects how services
To encourage people to join in and help I'm trying to do things that people
request. The uClibc addition was a popular idea. There have been several
requests for selinux in the passed year. If there are more urgent things to
do I would like to know what they are and I'll try to do them next instead.
More information about the hlfs-dev