[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Makefile hacks in bsd.subdir.mk

Theo de Raadt <deraadt_(_at_)_cvs_(_dot_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org> writes:

> > The "proper" solution might be to strip down OpenBSD to an absolute
> > minimum and then make everything else configurable through some sort
> > of package mechanism.  
> > [snip]
> This has been considered. Know what will happen? Some person wants a
> pidentd, and so they go pull any random one they can find of the
> net. 

I think you really misunderstood me there.  I didn't say to drop
identd from OpenBSD.  What I meant was that there could be a "core"
system and "optional packages" (and a ports collection and/or contrib
tree as yet another level).  The core system would do little more than
boot and everything else could be added by some sort of install
configuration.  But still both the core and the packages would still
be in the source tree.

Not that I'd consider it worth the effort...

> One does not secure a full-featured OS by removing features.

Right, but one does secure a particular setup with particular
requirements by removing features of an OS for that particular setup.
I don't want to kick sendmail out of the source tree, but I don't want
it on any of my machines either.

> If
> that's done, noone will bother running it. Not everyone running
> OpenBSD is using it for it's security.

This is a matter of functionality rather than security only.  An
operating system is supposed to support a wide variety of purposes,
some of which may require the *removal* of standard features, be it
out of security or space or whatever other considerations.

I think that OpenBSD has an excellent choice of components for a
standard installation.  But which existing systems really run such a
"standard" installation?  In many cases it is vital that a system is
easy to customize, not only by editing config files but by adding and
also by removing stuff.

Adding is simple, just shove everything in /usr/local.  But removing
isn't, especially if one can't afford to let "make build" temporarily
install set[ug]id binaries before they are removed again.  Sure, there
are workarounds, like messing around with the SUBDIR variables in half
(?) a dozen makefiles all over the source tree or building and
cleaning up the system while in single user mode or in a chrooted
environment.  But I consider them too awkward, so that's why I
suggested that SKIPDIR hack.  It's neither elegant nor foolproof, but
the technically challenged should stick with a standard installation
anyway.  It's the best solution I could come up with so far.


Ben(edikt)? Stockebrand    Runaway ping.de Admin---Never Ever Trust Old Friends
My name and email address are not to be added to any list used for advertising
purposes.  Any sender of unsolicited advertisement e-mail to this address im-
plicitly agrees to pay a DM 500 fee to the recipient for proofreading services.

Visit your host, monkey.org