Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI5: require ebuilds/eclasses to not use any vars/funcs prefixed with __
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:16:13
Message-Id: CALc3eMVZR=Gqcrz1K_YL=aN-MJDjmK+zmAMO0DmJwXraSvLegA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI5: require ebuilds/eclasses to not use any vars/funcs prefixed with __ by Ulrich Mueller
1 On 13 September 2012 06:48, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
2 >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
3 >> For SANDBOX_*, while that's a PM internal, that's a bit of a grey
4 >> zone; regardless, we can actually address that via extending the
5 >> sandbox functions a bit:
6 >>
7 >> addwrite [-r|--remove] pathway # for example, to do a removal.
8
9 It's nice to be able to do
10 local SANDBOX_WRITE=${SANDBOX_WRITE}
11 and then allow bash to restore the old value at the end of the
12 function, regardless of how it exits. It's not the end of the world
13 to lose this, but it would be a bit of a shame IMHO - having to do it
14 manually seems a little error-prone.
15
16 >> For instances where the sandbox needs to be turned off for a command-
17 >> we do the same thing we did w/ nonfatal;
18 >>
19 >> sandboxless <the command and args>
20 >
21 > To start the bikeshedding: For some reason I associate "less (the
22 > pager) in a sandbox" with this. ;-) Maybe "nosandbox" or "sandboxoff"?
23
24 "sansbox"? *flees*

Replies