Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with XDG directories in ebuild environment

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> >> Dnia 2014-01-25, o godz. 11:13:38
> >> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> napisał(a):
> >>
> >>> It seems having XDG variables like XDG_CONFIG_HOME set in the
> >>> environment when calling emerge has a tendency to cause sandbox
> >>> violations. For example, see the bugs blocking bug 499202.
> >>>
> >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499202
> >>>
> >>> If you grep for XDG_CONFIG_HOME in the eclass directory, you can see
> >>> that several eclasses work around this by setting
> >>> XDG_CONFIG_HOME="${T}" or "${T}/.config".
> >>>
> >>> gnome2-utils.eclass takes it a step further and creates empty
> >>> directories for several other XDG variables.
> >>>
> >>> Is this something we can/should consolidate into some central place?
> >>> Or should I just copy/paste something into distutils-r1.eclass?
> >>
> >> I'd say portage should kill that as part of sanitizing the environment.
> >> There's no point in reproducing it in random eclasses.
> >>
> >
> > I have filed an enhancement request for Portage.
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499288
>
> It seems Arfrever beat me to it. However, it looks like it would need
> to be an EAPI change, which means quite a long wait.
>

I don't buy that. The behavior appears to be currently undefined. Changing
it to different undefined behavior is allowed.

If EAPI-NEXT wants to define the behavior of XDG_* then that is fine too,
we will just be ahead of the curve, rather than behind.

-A


>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=444568
>
>