Archives
Archives
| From: | Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] should we add userpriv and usersandox to make.globals FEATURES? | ||
| Date: | Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:54:10 | ||
| Message-Id: | 443A4760.6050407@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-portage-dev] should we add userpriv and usersandox to make.globals FEATURES? by Zac Medico |
||
| 1 | Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 | > What do people think about adding userpriv and usersandox to make.globals FEATURES? I've been using these for a long time and haven't had any trouble with them. Are there any arguments against making them default? |
| 3 | |
| 4 | I didn't verify this personally, but a few days ago mkay came to #g-portage and |
| 5 | asked whether FEATURES='usersandbox -sandbox' resulting in sandbox enabled is |
| 6 | expected behaviour or not. Before we add usersandbox to the default FEATURES we |
| 7 | should make sure that -sandbox always disables sandbox. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | -- |
| 10 | Kind Regards, |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Simon Stelling |
| 13 | Gentoo/AMD64 Developer |
| 14 | -- |
| 15 | gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] should we add userpriv and usersandox to make.globals FEATURES? | Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |