Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] ACCEPT_RESTRICT for questionable values of RESTRICT

[Alec Warner]

Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:23:55 +0000
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:41:50 -0800 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
>> wrote:
>> | Bug #161045 [1] requests that portage support RESTRICT=sandbox.
>> | This is certainly a valid request but a user may wish to reject a
>> | package based on certain questionable values of RESTRICT.
>>
>> If a RESTRICT value is questionable, it shouldn't be supported or
>> used.
>>
>> Honestly, this strikes me as rather silly and rather dangerous.
>> RESTRICT is not something about which the end user should have to
>> know or care; it should be something entirely between ebuilds and the
>> package manager. And sandbox is not something that should be turned
>> off lightly; making it so easy will only encourage developers to take
>> the nasty way out rather than fixing simple bugs.

RESTRICT="fetch" is between the package, the manager, and the user (as
someone has to fetch the files).

RESTRICT="unattended" is also between the package, the manager, and the
user, as the user has to insert CD's for certain packages (most in
games).  However unattanded is not currently implemented, only proposed.

Maybe if we move these to a new metadata key or something, Looking over
the other RESTRICT values they all seem to be (ebuild,PM) tuples, not
anything the user would care about.


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list