| 1 |
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:11:18 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Dnia 2014-05-13, o godz. 09:28:49 |
| 5 |
> Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@×××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > I tried network-sandbox — this is a disaster. It brokes distcc |
| 8 |
> > completely since distcc client can't connect to remote servers (and |
| 9 |
> > even to a local one if any). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Calling something a disaster just because it breaks one thing is |
| 12 |
> unpleasant at least. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This is a corner case with no good solution at the moment. Though it is |
| 15 |
> entirely doable to make FEATURES=distcc and FEATURES=network-sandbox |
| 16 |
> conflict, or the former disable the latter implicitly. As Rich noted, |
| 17 |
> we do not enable distcc by default so there's no reason why we can't |
| 18 |
> enable conflicting options by default. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Probably best to make FEATURES=distcc disable network-sandbox then. People |
| 21 |
enabling it are explicitly saying they want to access the network. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
| 26 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |
Archives