| 1 |
Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild |
| 6 |
>> sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE="yes" globally, it does not mean that ebuilds |
| 7 |
>> may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot |
| 8 |
>> change in such a way that breaks this behaviour. The acceptance |
| 9 |
>> question is relevant only for legitimate behaviour; things accepted |
| 10 |
>> by fluke aren't considered accepted. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> However, the fact that Portage currently accepts it is tangentially |
| 13 |
> related to the matter at hand, because it's a piece of code that may |
| 14 |
> get confused by this sort of ambiguity. Fortunately it's (relatively |
| 15 |
> speaking) trivial to fix, because the ambiguity only happens due to |
| 16 |
> behaviour that shouldn't really be there. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Can you and Ciaran update the PMS to be specific and clear on this |
| 20 |
point? Cause I think everyone is in agreement here and all technical |
| 21 |
issues have been addressed. Unless I missed something. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> |
| 25 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives