Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_setup() and sandbox
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:15:42
Message-Id: 20050923011333.GA18375@nightcrawler
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] pkg_setup() and sandbox by Georgi Georgiev
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