Re: [gentoo-dev] Some suggestions

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 18:07, Jan Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday 07 September 2003 13:21, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > The other side of the issue that nobody really touched (or wanted to)
> > up to now, is that the way of doing things as we do is with a reason.
> > What about proposing (with maybe prototype) a new way of doing what
> > we do now via CONFIG_PROTECT and etc-update/dispatch-conf that will
> > also fit the requirements that you guys want ?
>
> Ok, as is understand this would be the variable:
> CONFIG_EXCLUDE in /etc/make.conf
>
> This variable would accept a list of directories/files for which the behaviour
> of portage would be like follows:
>
> whenever portage has the image of the to install software ready it scans this
> image for the values in CONFIG_EXCLUDE.
>
> whenever it finds such a directory/file in the image it moves the
> directory/file to the doc-directory (eg:
> /usr/share/doc/${PF}/excluded_config/ ) of the image (and maybe writes a
> message to the user/log)
>
> after that portage continues normally.
>

Ok, this sounds like an good alternative, and it is flexible.

Might add a bug and add us all to it after its been discussed some more.

> (btw: i really dont like the possibility an ebuild can change the live
> filesystem in pkg_postinst. that somehow makes the sandbox useless. it
> shudders me, when i think of an ebuild that has a complicated shell code in
> pkg_postinst with rm/cp/mv/cat/(other potentially dangerous commands) in it.
> I just can hope that this shell code works as expected on the wide variations
> of gentoo installations. but thats another story and another reason why i
> dont use gentoo on my servers any longer)
>

But you trust the daemons/programs running with root privs all the
time ? :D


Cheers,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa