| 1 |
W dniu wto, 16.01.2018 o godzinie 23∶32 -0500, użytkownik Mike Gilbert |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@××××××××.org> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Some ebuilds are a bit hard to fix their use of the network in src |
| 7 |
> > phases, so allow them to disable things. This allows us to turn off |
| 8 |
> > access by default and for the vast majority while we work out how to |
| 9 |
> > fix the few broken packages. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If we are going to allow network sandboxing to be disabled in |
| 12 |
> individual ebuilds, we should also allow the other sandboxes to be |
| 13 |
> disabled for the same reasons. sys-apps/sandbox has been notoriously |
| 14 |
> buggy, for example. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Also, valid RESTRICT values are specified in PMS, so this really |
| 17 |
> belongs in an a new EAPI. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As long as this isn't used in ::gentoo, I don't mind. However, for |
| 20 |
completeness I should point out that: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
a. you should be addressing the root issue and not bashing with big |
| 23 |
'sandbox' hammer whenever something fails -- i.e. if the problem is due |
| 24 |
to LD_PRELOAD being used (which is frequently the case), then |
| 25 |
the solution is to wipe LD_PRELOAD, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
b. you should be addressing it in as narrow scope as possible -- i.e. it |
| 28 |
is usually enough to disable sandbox for the execution of a single |
| 29 |
command rather than the whole ebuild. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That said, app-portage/unsandbox is much cleaner solution here. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives