On 17 Jun 2003, "Lisa M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 16:19, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2003, "Lisa M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The solution to this is to use a different envvar (in the patch I > > > submitted[1] to Gentoo in an ebuild revision) I use $DISTCC_TMPDIR.
Thankyou for sending the report. It might first be worth asking: *why* does Portage set TMPDIR, and what are the consequences of routing around it? > > However, this patch also breaks distcc's behavior for those who > > actually have a legitimate reason to set TMPDIR. > > This patch is aimed soley at Gentoo users since their TMPDIR > settings are unreliable (and even if left blank, distcc will not > default to /tmp because during compilation Portage assigns a value > to TMPDIR). Please, when you're making patches, consider what impact they will have on people not using Gentoo, or even people who are compiling on Gentoo but not through ebuild. (People do sometimes build their own programs.) > I'm unaware of any other instances where TMPDIR could be untrusted. In > those cases where TMPDIR *is* unreliable, then I believe this patch will > offer the user a viable alternative through an envvar that is not likely > to be changed. I'm not sure what you mean by 'untrusted'. Sometimes people have valid reasons for setting TMPDIR - e.g. security concerns about shared /tmp, or /tmp being too small, or wanting independent distcc instances for testing. You shouldn't gratuitously break it. -- Martin __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
