On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 09:40 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > into pkg_setup and be done with it; no need for RESTRICT=sandbox or > ACCEPT_RESTRICT. Users can decide whether they really wish to install > such app and disable sandbox temporarily if they think it's a good idea.
Uhh... you missed RESTRICT=userpriv and the upcoming RESTRICT=unattended when calling for no "ACCEPT_RESTRICT"... > If you'd like to commit this to the official tree, then either fix it > properly or don't commit such stuff at all. That's very easy for someone to say when they're not the ones involved in the work. Placing artificial limitations such as this really is a bad idea. After all, we're all about empowering the user to make the choice, so let them make the choice. If users want the package, why should we stop them when it is technically feasible and not completely asinine? Besides, if I want to maintain some nasty application that doesn't work with sandbox, who are you (or anyone, for that matter) to tell me that I cannot? Hell, we could even *not* have sandbox/userpriv in the default ACCEPT_RESTRICT, since they have possible security implications. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
