Re: [Libguestfs] Plans for libguestfs
* Richard W.M. Jones:
I'm interested to know what the security/maintenance objections
are.
We ship the *supermin* appliance in Fedora, precisely because it
improves security and maintenance.
Ah well, it seems that I misunderstood what base.img is for. For some
reason I believed that executables and libraries are extracted from the
downloaded binary packages and copied into the image.
What was I thinking? Sorry for the noise. :-)
With the question about security out of the way (for which I'm glad), I
still think that it would be best to build supermin.d/base.img and
supermin.d/hostfiles at installation time -- and to provide a documented
way for the user to rebuild them.
I guess we only have one version of Python at a time in Fedora.
Could we do something like adding a ./configure --disable-library
option, allowing you to disable everything (except Python) and thus
just rebuild Python bindings?
Is it even possible to build the Python bindings without the libguestfs
library being available through libtool?
Speaking of Python bindings... is it possible to convince libtool to
build just a .so file, without .0.0 extension and symlinks? (As I
reported a bug in dh_python2, it was pointed out to me that this was
wrong.)
Cheers,
-Hilko