| 1 |
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:39:47 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Farid BENAMROUCHE <fariouche@×××××.fr> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> interresting aproach. |
| 5 |
> this could work. however, i can see a few limitations: |
| 6 |
> - you must be root. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Actually you don't if you add -r to unshare, which gives you what is |
| 9 |
sometimes called fakeroot. Obviously you still can't modify the files |
| 10 |
if they are really owned by root but that's true of any solution. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> - this is specific to linux as of today. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
True and I am only interested in Linux but I like to play nice. Other |
| 15 |
platforms could potentially still briefly bind mount but it wouldn't be |
| 16 |
isolated from the other processes so it wouldn't be entirely safe. Safe |
| 17 |
enough though? You'd need to weigh this up against how many people use |
| 18 |
ROOT!=/ on other platforms. Not many at all, I imagine. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> - if you want to hide the mechanism, i don't see how without doing |
| 21 |
> the same portage modifications as in my solution. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You could handle this in the eclass functions but as you pointed out, |
| 24 |
many things call chown/chgrp directly. Usage by ebuilds themselves can |
| 25 |
be addressed but if a build system calls these then eclass functions |
| 26 |
will not help. What would work is adding some identically-named |
| 27 |
wrappers to the PATH. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives