| 1 |
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:23:55 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:41:50 -0800 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> | Bug #161045 [1] requests that portage support RESTRICT=sandbox. |
| 7 |
> | This is certainly a valid request but a user may wish to reject a |
| 8 |
> | package based on certain questionable values of RESTRICT. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If a RESTRICT value is questionable, it shouldn't be supported or |
| 11 |
> used. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Honestly, this strikes me as rather silly and rather dangerous. |
| 14 |
> RESTRICT is not something about which the end user should have to |
| 15 |
> know or care; it should be something entirely between ebuilds and the |
| 16 |
> package manager. And sandbox is not something that should be turned |
| 17 |
> off lightly; making it so easy will only encourage developers to take |
| 18 |
> the nasty way out rather than fixing simple bugs. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I agree; it'd be useful to know exactly what is failing the sandbox and |
| 21 |
why, with the aim of fixing sandbox if it isn't quite up to the job. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The only shortcoming I'm aware of in sandbox is bug #135745 (have |
| 24 |
fopen/open() fail normally if the file does not exist, rather than |
| 25 |
report a violation). Waiting on azarah to roll a new sandbox version, |
| 26 |
I think. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives