On 7/16/07, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/14/07, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/7/07, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > That is true. Moving Compile to something like ChrootCompile is > > > definitely a good goal. In this instance, the desired Qt (3 or 4) > > > conflicts at build time due to the moc executable. At runtime, Qt 3 > > > and 4 shouldn't conflict. ChrootCompile should solve this. > > > > While talking about that, we still have to figure out a way to allow > > installation scripts to poke with files such as passwd/shadow/group > > (the last time I talked to Jonas he had some good ideas on how to deal > > with that).. > > > > The problem with sandboxing is that it'll be pretty easy to get fooled > > by it, as writes will not be redirected to the "real" root > > filesystem.. anyway, this talk is more appropriate to be done in the > > devel mailing list (copied). > > > > Do you mean from "make install" or PostInstall? I would argue that > "make install" shouldn't alter passwd/shadow/group. The makefile > should be patched and PostInstall used instead.
Either will fail with chroot compile. Our PostInstall script needs adjustments badly -- one cannot write outside $target from inside PostInstall. Jonas had some suggestions on how to allow that in a similar fashion that's used to allow unmanaged files to be touched, but that would bring some more script files. In my opinion, PostInstall could be swept away.. I don't remember having seen any package or recipe using it (just in case there is some, its Resources/FileHash is probably getting broken after the script is run...) -- Lucas powered by /dev/dsp _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
