| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 16 Jan 2018 23:32, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Some ebuilds are a bit hard to fix their use of the network in src |
| 6 |
> > > phases, so allow them to disable things. This allows us to turn off |
| 7 |
> > > access by default and for the vast majority while we work out how to |
| 8 |
> > > fix the few broken packages. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > If we are going to allow network sandboxing to be disabled in |
| 11 |
> > individual ebuilds, we should also allow the other sandboxes to be |
| 12 |
> > disabled for the same reasons. sys-apps/sandbox has been notoriously |
| 13 |
> > buggy, for example. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> that sandbox can already be disabled dynamically in ebuilds as needed. |
| 16 |
> i don't really see a reason for it to be a RESTRICT value. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It used to be in RESTRICT even; it was dropped in 2015. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/message/05f8faf4f1477b4406619b92bb7722b7 |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I don't mind if portage acts on other tokens (allowed in the spec). I do |
| 24 |
think we should file a patch to PMS. |
| 25 |
If they accept it, other PMs can implement this feature in a future EAPI |
| 26 |
(and in portage, it will just work in all EAPIs) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
But if we never tell them about the tokens, they can never implement them. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-A |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-mike |
| 33 |
> |
Archives