| 1 |
Hi Michał, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 3/27/20 5:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> Stop here. If you think that you need to 'break network sandbox', you |
| 5 |
> already have the wrong attitude and shouldn't continue. Network sandbox |
| 6 |
> is not your enemy. Using network is. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Network sandbox protects users from paying extra because you've written |
| 9 |
> a bad ebuild that unexpectedly downloads lot of data on their mobile |
| 10 |
> connection. Network sandbox makes sure that we don't end up delivering |
| 11 |
> stuff that doesn't work to people who are on isolated networks or simply |
| 12 |
> have non-permanent connections. Network sandbox makes sure that these |
| 13 |
> ebuilds will work three months from now when upstream randomly decides |
| 14 |
> to remove old files or shuffle servers, or just get hits by a temporary |
| 15 |
> issue. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> There's no 'breaking the network sandbox'. You must fix the ebuild not |
| 18 |
> to require Internet. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That is an awesome concept for producing ebuilds, since I could be using |
| 21 |
dist-cc and compiling multiple profiles using dedicated computing |
| 22 |
cluster leveraging available resources within a sandbox with very |
| 23 |
restricted access. This is a very nice pattern on resource management. |
| 24 |
This is another reason why I like Gentoo very much, with the SQA |
| 25 |
assurance of the high quality rules, and persuade me to invest my time |
| 26 |
using this wonderful distro. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I understand that network sandbox only restricts the build environment, |
| 29 |
but wouldn't the urls in SRC_URI be a problem when referencing sites |
| 30 |
that are not reliable? Shouldn't be relevant to define those sites that |
| 31 |
give better assurance for syncing the required binaries? |
| 32 |
Same question for unpack context when using directly the source |
| 33 |
repository with vcs functions. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Best, |
| 36 |
Samuel |
Archives