| 1 |
Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 22 August 2005 12:52, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>>Was talking with Brian about the build environment and how settings |
| 7 |
>>>were to be passed into the build environment. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>Essentially three scenarios were presented. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>Snip and summary: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>>1) Pass everything |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>>2) Blacklist and strip bad stuff |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>>3) Whitelist good stuff; strip everything else |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>>>To me 1) is unacceptable and 3) is the best option. Feel free to |
| 21 |
>>>shoot these down as you see fit ;) |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>>Option 4: Strip everything. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>>Nothing is passed from the original environment; everything passed in the |
| 26 |
>>environment is considered to be a "portage variable". This, I suppose, |
| 27 |
>>is an extreme case of the whitelist. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Well, I'll go against the flow. ;) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> My preference would go 4, 3, 2 then 1. While Makefiles and configure scripts |
| 33 |
> may be "broken" upstream, how long is it before the breakage goes |
| 34 |
> unnoticed? More importantly, what's the chances of a dev finding the |
| 35 |
> breakage before users? Cleansing the environment to me is akin to using |
| 36 |
> sandbox. It offers protection against misbehaving packages... |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Good point. How about if we add environment sandboxing support (in addition to filesystem sandboxing) to sandbox. With an environment sandbox, we could detect specifically which variables a build is fragile with regard to. The sandbox would have both filesystem access and environment access violation summaries. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Zac |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives