1 |
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 09:47:17AM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
2 |
> Should pkg_setup() be run in a sandbox? |
3 |
> |
4 |
> The current reasons to not have it sandboxed include: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> - ebuilds need to add users |
7 |
> - ... (any others?) |
8 |
> |
9 |
> So, would it make sense to sandbox pkg_setup() and only unmask the |
10 |
> passwd files needed for adding users? enewuser & friends can be made to |
11 |
> unmask those locations on demand, thus making the transition painless. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> What other reasons are there for having pkg_setup() outside the sandbox? |
14 |
|
15 |
Historical mostly I would expect. |
16 |
portage-2.1 actually deprived the setup phase already btw (no, that's |
17 |
not standard, I just decided to do it and it hasn't been reverted |
18 |
yet). Works fairly well 'cept for enew* and friends. |
19 |
|
20 |
> As to why I'm asking -- this[1] abolition of an ebuild made its way on |
21 |
> the qmail mailing list and I was shocked that it does not die in the |
22 |
> first place. |
23 |
See glep27. |
24 |
|
25 |
My thoughts on it is to bind the EUSERS/EGROUPS |
26 |
to eapi1, and phase out enew* calls when EAPI=1 rather then EAPI=0. |
27 |
|
28 |
~harring |