On Tue, 01 May 2007 08:16:16 +0100 Paul Howarth wrote:
> Ed Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:46:04 +0200 Axel Thimm wrote:
> >> Personally I prefer banning multilib in rpm for good and if that
> >> would be best done by using chroot solutions, I'm all for it. The
> >> multilib implementation within rpm magic just isn't scaling and
> >> produces more bugs on the way than we can fix.
[snip]
> > It just seems to me that chroots are probably a lot less usable than
> > binaries placed in {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 or similar.
>
> chroots and SELinux don't play nicely together at the moment either.
> You'd need to replicate the entire set of default contexts into each
> chroot.
So is it fair to say that chroots are too problematic for anyone other
than "extremely knowledgeable users" to take advantage of them?
I'm just trying to get across the point that some of the options to
{,/usr}/{,s}bin64 that folks have mentioned are probably not all that
useful.
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed@xxxxxxx | http://eh3.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
