On 03:01 Sun 06 Mar , Brian Harring wrote: [snip] Thanks for your feedback, your remarks were correct :). I updated the eclass appropriately.
> I'd take a different approach here; this code basically assumes that > the PM knows of it- note the chmod -s. The use flag protection you > tried adding, without some profile hacks, is user modifiable- meaning > users can flip it on even if the PM doesn't support it. > > Or consider that the code above is purely doing it's thing during the > install phase, specifically against whatever filesystem is used for > building- while capabilities might be able to be set there, it's > possible the final merge location won't support it. End result of > that is you'll get a setuid stripped binary merged to the > livefs lacking the caps- borkage. Or consider the inverse- the > buildroot can't do capabilities, but the livefs could. You get the > idea. > > Instead, write the code so the PM has to export a marker in some > fashion to explicitly state "yes, I can do capabilities"- I'm > specifically suggestining checking for a callback function exposed to > the env. > > If that function isn't there, then the PM can't do it- end of story. > If it is, the PM takes the args and will try to apply the > capabilities at the correct time- stripping setuid/setgid if it > succeeds. > > Please go that route; and please do not stick "portage" into the > function name, something generic we can use for a later EAPI is > better. > > Implementing it as I suggested has the nice side affect of not being > limited by PMS also, although it's an approach that still requires > planning for compatibility. I'm currently in search of a good fallback mechanism respectivly a good mechanism to deal with cap-setting in src_install. As I already said in my mail to ciaran, I'm going to give the new ideas some thought :). Cheers, constanze
