Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:12:18
Message-Id: 20050908031006.GA18961@nightcrawler
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage by m h
1 Icky on the html email :P
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
9 s/sandbox/prefix/
10 This is what fink does, and what gentoo-osx is moving towards.
13 > (similar to what openpkg does). I've done some googling and found the
14 > documentation about the gentoo sandbox
15 > ([1], but this seems to be a
16 > tool for checking that ebuilds behave correctly.
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).
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.
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?
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).
39 > Do any of the devs out here have experience with openpkg?
41 Pretty much an extension of rpm spec's, afaik.
42 Beyond that? Heh, nope :)
43 ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage m h <sesquile@×××××.com>