| 1 |
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 09:40 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> into pkg_setup and be done with it; no need for RESTRICT=sandbox or |
| 3 |
> ACCEPT_RESTRICT. Users can decide whether they really wish to install |
| 4 |
> such app and disable sandbox temporarily if they think it's a good idea. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Uhh... you missed RESTRICT=userpriv and the upcoming RESTRICT=unattended |
| 7 |
when calling for no "ACCEPT_RESTRICT"... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> If you'd like to commit this to the official tree, then either fix it |
| 10 |
> properly or don't commit such stuff at all. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's very easy for someone to say when they're not the ones involved |
| 13 |
in the work. Placing artificial limitations such as this really is a |
| 14 |
bad idea. After all, we're all about empowering the user to make the |
| 15 |
choice, so let them make the choice. If users want the package, why |
| 16 |
should we stop them when it is technically feasible and not completely |
| 17 |
asinine? Besides, if I want to maintain some nasty application that |
| 18 |
doesn't work with sandbox, who are you (or anyone, for that matter) to |
| 19 |
tell me that I cannot? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Hell, we could even *not* have sandbox/userpriv in the default |
| 22 |
ACCEPT_RESTRICT, since they have possible security implications. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 26 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 27 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 28 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 29 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives