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

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 21:01 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 19:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> > > On Wednesday 10 January 2007 09:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > >> Huh? I was referring to this link [1] on Bug 161045 (which presumably
> > >> started this whole debate)
> > >
> > > so you're replying to a non-gentoo-dev thread on a gentoo-dev thread when
> > > the threads arent even closely related ?  how does that make sense ?
> > >
> > > this thread has nothing to do with commercial packages
> >
> > No, it does not. And RESTRICT=sandbox is still completely unneeded,
> > commercial packages or not... We don't need to introduce a special
> > RESTRICT because of two borked packages in the tree and we should not
> > introduce any more packages borked in a similar way into the tree.
>
> I agree. The restrict should only be even considered when it is clear that the
> sandbox is indeed flawed by concept and cannot be fixed.

That's fine, but it still doesn't remove the usefulness of an
ACCEPT_RESTRICT for some other variables.

Think of it this way... a user *chose* to add a FEATURE.  We have a
package that doesn't work with that FEATURE.  Currently, we "tell" the
user they're wrong and do it our way, no matter what.  There's no
mechanism for the user to say "Always do what I say.  I'd rather not
install the package if it doesn't work with $FEATURE." which could be
solved with ACCEPT_RESTRICT.  It gives the power back to the user, not
the ebuild writer.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation