Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:04:07 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How much security should ldconfig enforce? Message-ID: <20000727130407.A35888@spawn.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <20000727094013.T17222@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 09:40:13AM -0700 References: <XFMail.000726193613.jdp@polstra.com> <20000727075027.C8974@hamlet.nectar.com> <20000727094013.T17222@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 09:40:13AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > I like this option, but the knob should be compile-time, IMHO. > Compile time options died in the early 90's dude. :) Heh. What I _really_ felt was that the ``secure'' behavior should be the only normally available, and if someone felt differently they can patch the source themselves :-) But I didn't feel comfortable taking such a drastic position so I guess I just picked the worst of both worlds. -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000727130407.A35888>