| 1 |
On 8/18/2012 5:50 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 2012-08-17, at 11:00 PM, "Gregory M. Turner" <gmt@×××××.us> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> greg@fedora64vmw /tmp $ mkdir foo |
| 6 |
>> greg@fedora64vmw /tmp $ ROOT=foo portageq envvar ROOT |
| 7 |
>> /tmp/foo/ |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Does /anybody/ use this feature? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Sorry for the HTML response... am on the road. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't use the feature but I would fully expect said behavior. ie, going with the example above I would expect that I'd need the / in front for the path to not be relative. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
A user and maintainer of this (vapier) has emerged. I pooh-poohed the |
| 16 |
relative-ROOT idea when I discovered it a few days ago, but I've |
| 17 |
flip-flopped. I was concerned it would be exploitable by Bad |
| 18 |
People(tm), but I think it's no more exploitable than absolute-only |
| 19 |
ROOT, so long as its implemented correctly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So far, nobody's turned up to advocate against the status quo (except |
| 22 |
me, but I'm fine with it now), so I think the matter can be considered |
| 23 |
resolved. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-gmt |
Archives