1 |
Icky on the html email :P |
2 |
|
3 |
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:45:16PM -0700, m h wrote: |
4 |
> Hello- |
5 |
> I'm investigating the similarities between portage and openpkg. More |
6 |
> specifically I was wondering if it is possible to take portage and |
7 |
> install in on top of an existing linux installation in its own sandbox |
8 |
|
9 |
s/sandbox/prefix/ |
10 |
This is what fink does, and what gentoo-osx is moving towards. |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
> (similar to what openpkg does). I've done some googling and found the |
14 |
> documentation about the gentoo sandbox |
15 |
> ([1]http://bugday.gentoo.org/sandbox.html), but this seems to be a |
16 |
> tool for checking that ebuilds behave correctly. |
17 |
|
18 |
Moreso protection, then ensuring they behave correctly; if they do |
19 |
something they shouldn't they get blocked from what they're |
20 |
attempting. It's an active tool, rather then a 'check' of the ebuild |
21 |
(that and it's limited to linux, no *bsd implementations). |
22 |
|
23 |
Akin to depriving, although depriving is more effective- one can |
24 |
sidestep the sandbox, can't sidestep being de-prived aside from priv |
25 |
escalation. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
> I've read through |
29 |
> the developer documentation and didn't find anything there. Google |
30 |
> hasn't necessarily been very useful either.... |
31 |
> So, is it possible to sandbox a portage installation on top of say a |
32 |
> debian or fedora install? If so, can anyone point me in the right |
33 |
> direction? |
34 |
|
35 |
With current ebuilds, nope. There's no global prefix offset in the |
36 |
code for it (root is merge offset, not runtime prefix offset). |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
> Do any of the devs out here have experience with openpkg? |
40 |
|
41 |
Pretty much an extension of rpm spec's, afaik. |
42 |
Beyond that? Heh, nope :) |
43 |
~harring |