Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] ACCEPT_RESTRICT for questionable values of RESTRICT

[Kent Fredric]

On 1/11/07, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 09:40 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > into pkg_setup and be done with it; no need for RESTRICT=sandbox or
> > ACCEPT_RESTRICT. Users can decide whether they really wish to install
> > such app and disable sandbox temporarily if they think it's a good idea.
>
> Uhh... you missed RESTRICT=userpriv and the upcoming RESTRICT=unattended
> when calling for no "ACCEPT_RESTRICT"...
>
> > If you'd like to commit this to the official tree, then either fix it
> > properly or don't commit such stuff at all.
>
> That's very easy for someone to say when they're not the ones involved
> in the work.  Placing artificial limitations such as this really is a
> bad idea.  After all, we're all about empowering the user to make the
> choice, so let them make the choice.  If users want the package, why
> should we stop them when it is technically feasible and not completely
> asinine?  Besides, if I want to maintain some nasty application that
> doesn't work with sandbox, who are you (or anyone, for that matter) to
> tell me that I cannot?
>
> Hell, we could even *not* have sandbox/userpriv in the default
> ACCEPT_RESTRICT, since they have possible security implications.
>
> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering Strategic Lead
> Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
> Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
> Gentoo Foundation
>
>
>


I know at least one person who have an automated/cron-jobbed upgrade
system, and I believe it would be useful as an extra application of
ACCEPT_RESTRICT for them to auto-accept upgrades which can be done
without breaking things without user interaction, and then
occasionally have them doing a manual emerge run with ACCEPT_RESTRICT
including the interactive requests to do the items which need their
presence.

My 2 cents.

Kent,
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list