| 1 |
On 18/06/11 13:18, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17.06.2011 20:18, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:25:21 Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> * justin <jlec@g.o>: |
| 5 |
>>>> Now using the new pkg_pretend for EAPI=4 |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> While T is defined in all phases, PMS also says that "pkg_pretend must |
| 8 |
>>> not write to the filesystem". |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> Is it allowed to write to T or not? Can the specs be clearer if it's |
| 11 |
>>> allowed? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> sounds like a good reason to use emktemp as that'll utilize /tmp for files |
| 14 |
>> when $T is unavailable |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> That approach would still write to the filesystem. With the current text |
| 18 |
> the PM is probably allowed to set the sandbox so that writing is |
| 19 |
> anywhere is denied. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Regards, |
| 22 |
> Petteri |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The reason why it would be beneficial to use is the pkg_pretend phase is |
| 26 |
simply that the checks would run at the beginning of a emerge and it |
| 27 |
would fail directly instead somewhere in the middle. For a single |
| 28 |
package it won't change much but for a huge emerge it changes the things. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
But when there is no writing allowed during the pretend phase. then the |
| 31 |
only chance is to move it to pkg_setup. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
thanks for clarification. |
Archives