On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:23:55 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:41:50 -0800 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Bug #161045 [1] requests that portage support RESTRICT=sandbox. > | This is certainly a valid request but a user may wish to reject a > | package based on certain questionable values of RESTRICT. > > If a RESTRICT value is questionable, it shouldn't be supported or > used. > > Honestly, this strikes me as rather silly and rather dangerous. > RESTRICT is not something about which the end user should have to > know or care; it should be something entirely between ebuilds and the > package manager. And sandbox is not something that should be turned > off lightly; making it so easy will only encourage developers to take > the nasty way out rather than fixing simple bugs. I agree; it'd be useful to know exactly what is failing the sandbox and why, with the aim of fixing sandbox if it isn't quite up to the job. The only shortcoming I'm aware of in sandbox is bug #135745 (have fopen/open() fail normally if the file does not exist, rather than report a violation). Waiting on azarah to roll a new sandbox version, I think. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
