Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 03:18:14
Message-Id: 20050316031726.GA23157@freedom.wit.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/' by Georgi Georgiev
1 On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:05:43AM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
2 > maillog: 15/03/2005-12:01:47(-0600): Brian Jackson types
3 > > On 10:14:14 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote:
4 > > > maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types
5 > > > > I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a
6 > > > > while before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not
7 > > > > trivial to fix it because some of the config stuff isn't very
8 > > > > well abstracted.
9 > > >
10 > > > It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the
11 > > > locations are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with
12 > > > something. Could we get some input from whoever told you this?
13 > >
14 > > make.conf is easy. The profile isn't as easy. /etc/portage isn't easy
15 > > at all. That's the basics. You'd have to ask the portage guys for more
16 > > in depth info.
17 >
18 > I was hoping to get a response from them here. Portage guys, you there?
19 http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/portage/pym/config.py?root=gentoo-src
20 ^^^^ config class, cleaned up a bit from what stable has.
21
22 At the moment, my focus on the bugger is the following-
23 A) integration of env whitelist tracking, preferably in a an attached
24 instance (the need for this is partially bound to covering
25 filter-env's ass).
26 B) either reorganize the beast so env stuff is accessible via an
27 attribute, or create a container class that the config gets
28 assigned into
29 C) bind all tree instances to the config. Why? Kill off portage.db
30 global usage entirely, and try and encapsulate data into one
31 common, passable instance
32 D) shift virtual loading, setcpv, setinst, load_infodir, etc, all out
33 of config and to a proper class.
34
35 So... why tack that stuff in now, when the class itself needs a major
36 enema? :)
37
38 Basically it comes down to a focus (at this point) in trying to
39 improve the existing code/abstractions in use, rather then tacking
40 more features/codepaths in.
41
42 Anyone interested can take a crack at the request above, it's just not
43 high on my peronsal (likely our) list of priorities, since the
44 existing code is spaghetti like.
45
46 Note that integration of env whitelisting *is* adding a new feature
47 in. It's kind of required to keep things sane for the env handling
48 though (mainly, a few very crazy var settings are *very* hard to
49 properly filter). That and it can't be done without refactoring the
50 config class anyways (which is intended)...
51 ~harring
52 --
53 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/' Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>