| 1 |
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 13:32 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 13:03, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And RESTRICT=sandbox is still completely unneeded, |
| 4 |
> > commercial packages or not... We don't need to introduce a special |
| 5 |
> > RESTRICT because of two borked packages in the tree and we should not |
| 6 |
> > introduce any more packages borked in a similar way into the tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> for future reference, keep your replies on topic and stupid rants out |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> this is what you should have said in the first place |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> we need a real solution for emacs/gcl ... exporting SANDBOX_ON=0 is not the |
| 13 |
> answer |
| 14 |
> -mike |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Here's a real solution for gcl: |
| 17 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161041#c7 |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Y'know, if even a tenth of the energy that went into this flame war had |
| 20 |
gone into solving the emacs sandbox breakage, I'm pretty sure that would |
| 21 |
have been fixed by now as well. Funny, that. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ed |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives