| 1 |
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 04:28, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> What do people think about adding userpriv and usersandox to |
| 5 |
> >> make.globals FEATURES? I've been using these for a long time and |
| 6 |
> >> haven't had any trouble with them. Are there any arguments against |
| 7 |
> >> making them default? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I didn't verify this personally, but a few days ago mkay came to |
| 10 |
> > #g-portage and asked whether FEATURES='usersandbox -sandbox' resulting |
| 11 |
> > in sandbox enabled is expected behaviour or not. Before we add |
| 12 |
> > usersandbox to the default FEATURES we should make sure that -sandbox |
| 13 |
> > always disables sandbox. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yeah, we should fix that. In fact, usersandbox seems like a redundant |
| 16 |
> feature to me. Can we deprecate usersandbox and recommend "sandbox" as |
| 17 |
> the sole means of toggling sandbox on and off (whether userpriv is |
| 18 |
> enabled or not)? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
"sandbox userpriv" thus far has meant to prefer userpriv and fallback to |
| 21 |
sandbox when the ebuild doesn't work with userpriv. When those two are |
| 22 |
combined with "usersandbox" on the other hand, it has meant to throw |
| 23 |
everything possible at the ebuild. I personally prefer to not use |
| 24 |
usersandbox as the sandbox gives a sometimes-not-small performance hit |
| 25 |
and I'm a ricer. :P |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives