| 1 |
On Sunday 07 September 2003 13:21, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 2 |
> The other side of the issue that nobody really touched (or wanted to) |
| 3 |
> up to now, is that the way of doing things as we do is with a reason. |
| 4 |
> What about proposing (with maybe prototype) a new way of doing what |
| 5 |
> we do now via CONFIG_PROTECT and etc-update/dispatch-conf that will |
| 6 |
> also fit the requirements that you guys want ? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Ok, as is understand this would be the variable: |
| 9 |
CONFIG_EXCLUDE in /etc/make.conf |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
This variable would accept a list of directories/files for which the behaviour |
| 12 |
of portage would be like follows: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
whenever portage has the image of the to install software ready it scans this |
| 15 |
image for the values in CONFIG_EXCLUDE. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
whenever it finds such a directory/file in the image it moves the |
| 18 |
directory/file to the doc-directory (eg: |
| 19 |
/usr/share/doc/${PF}/excluded_config/ ) of the image (and maybe writes a |
| 20 |
message to the user/log) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
after that portage continues normally. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
(btw: i really dont like the possibility an ebuild can change the live |
| 25 |
filesystem in pkg_postinst. that somehow makes the sandbox useless. it |
| 26 |
shudders me, when i think of an ebuild that has a complicated shell code in |
| 27 |
pkg_postinst with rm/cp/mv/cat/(other potentially dangerous commands) in it. |
| 28 |
I just can hope that this shell code works as expected on the wide variations |
| 29 |
of gentoo installations. but thats another story and another reason why i |
| 30 |
dont use gentoo on my servers any longer) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Jan |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives