1 |
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:45:26 -0700 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 07/02/2012 01:36 PM, vivo75@×××××.com wrote: |
5 |
> > Il 02/07/2012 22:01, Zac Medico ha scritto: |
6 |
> >> On 07/02/2012 12:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
7 |
> >>> El lun, 28-05-2012 a las 14:34 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
8 |
> >>>> Hi, |
9 |
> >>>> |
10 |
> >>>> In case you aren't familiar with FEATURES=userpriv, here's the |
11 |
> >>>> description from the make.conf(5) man page: |
12 |
> >>>> |
13 |
> >>>> Allow portage to drop root privileges and compile packages as |
14 |
> >>>> portage:portage without a sandbox (unless usersandbox is also |
15 |
> >>>> used). |
16 |
> >>>> |
17 |
> >>>> The rationale for having the separate "usersandbox" setting, to |
18 |
> >>>> enable use of sys-apps/sandbox, is that people who enable |
19 |
> >>>> userpriv sometimes prefer to have sandbox disabled in order to |
20 |
> >>>> slightly improve performance. However, I would recommend to |
21 |
> >>>> enable usersandbox by default, for the purpose of logging |
22 |
> >>>> sandbox violations. |
23 |
> >>>> |
24 |
> >>>> Note that ebuilds can set RESTRICT="userpriv" if they require |
25 |
> >>>> superuser privileges during any of the src_* phases that |
26 |
> >>>> userpriv affects. |
27 |
> >>>> |
28 |
> >>>> I've been using FEATURES="userpriv usersandbox" for years, and I |
29 |
> >>>> don't remember experiencing any problems because of it, so I |
30 |
> >>>> think that it would be reasonable to have it enabled by default. |
31 |
> >>>> Objections? |
32 |
> >>> Looks like non important problems arised and, then, these could |
33 |
> >>> probably be enabled by default, no? :) |
34 |
> >> I'm not sure about the best way to handle migration for directories |
35 |
> >> inside $DISTDIR that are used by live ebuilds, since src_unpack |
36 |
> >> will run with different privileges when userpriv is enabled. |
37 |
> > tell the user to chown/remove the files/directories if and when |
38 |
> > needed, |
39 |
> |
40 |
> How should we tell them? Elog message, news item, or both? |
41 |
|
42 |
I think this deserves a news item anyway. |
43 |
|
44 |
> > unless there is a very good reason (try) to automate it. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I guess something like this might work in pkg_postinst of the portage |
47 |
> ebuild: |
48 |
> |
49 |
> find "$DISTDIR" -maxdepth 1 -type d -uid 0 | xargs chown -R |
50 |
> portage:portage |
51 |
|
52 |
find "$DISTDIR" -maxdepth 1 -type d -uid 0 -exec \ |
53 |
chown -R portage:portage {} + |
54 |
|
55 |
> I would only trigger something like this once, when upgrading from a |
56 |
> version that doesn't have userpriv enabled by default. |
57 |
|
58 |
This will work only for users who actually keep those in DISTDIR. Some |
59 |
of them actually redefine E*_STORE_DIR to a more sane location. But |
60 |
that's probably irrelevant. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
Best regards, |
64 |
Michał Górny |