| 1 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:47:17 +0900 |
| 2 |
Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Should pkg_setup() be run in a sandbox? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The current reasons to not have it sandboxed include: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> - ebuilds need to add users |
| 9 |
> - ... (any others?) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So, would it make sense to sandbox pkg_setup() and only unmask the |
| 12 |
> passwd files needed for adding users? enewuser & friends can be made |
| 13 |
> to unmask those locations on demand, thus making the transition |
| 14 |
> painless. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> What other reasons are there for having pkg_setup() outside the |
| 17 |
> sandbox? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> As to why I'm asking -- this[1] abolition of an ebuild made its way on |
| 20 |
> the qmail mailing list and I was shocked that it does not die in the |
| 21 |
> first place. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Disclamer: Exercise great caution with the following link. Only read |
| 24 |
> one line at a time or you may be overwhelmed. Take a break every 10 |
| 25 |
> lines or so. Have a sedative handy. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> [1] |
| 28 |
> http://briandowney.net/?page=linux§ion=gentooebuilds&ebuild=netqmail |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
Hi, |
| 31 |
Also quite messed up my system, while trying out netqmail-1.05.ebuild |
| 32 |
(BUG-106642). |
| 33 |
Still another issue, is there a way to use an "epatch" after which it's |
| 34 |
known you'll have an error, which later is fixed by another patch. |
| 35 |
IMHO it's easier just to fix the patch (if possible). |
| 36 |
Same problem (with pkg_setup() pkg_*) exists with this ebuild too. |
| 37 |
Thanks. Rumen |
Archives