| 1 |
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:44:38 -0400 |
| 4 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 6 |
>> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:46:57 +0200 |
| 8 |
>> > Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
>> >> On 12/05/14 17:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 10 |
>> >> > A flag being present or not in FEATURES does not mean anything, |
| 11 |
>> >> > and if you're assuming that it does then you have a bug. |
| 12 |
>> >> Please try to stay on topic, and don't obfuscate your posts |
| 13 |
>> >> needlessly. |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> > This is on-topic, and it tells you exactly what you need to know to |
| 16 |
>> > understand why your objection is irrelevant. But if you would like |
| 17 |
>> > it made simpler, but less precise: if you are looking at FEATURES |
| 18 |
>> > for anything that is not purely Portage internals, you are doing |
| 19 |
>> > something wrong. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> The idea would be to check for the necessary kernel features from |
| 22 |
>> portage backend code, not from ebuild code. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Why, though? FEATURES doesn't give meaningful information to anything |
| 25 |
> other than Portage internals, so it doesn't matter. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm not sure what you mean, but maybe we are just thinking about it differently. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
When FEATURES="network-sandbox", the kernel must have CONFIG_NET_NS |
| 31 |
enabled or the unshare(2) call will fail. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
We should probably emit an error message advising the user to enable |
| 34 |
the kernel option or disable the network-sandbox feature. This should |
| 35 |
happen when we call unshare() and that fails with errno == EINVAL. |
Archives