On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 07:39:05PM +0200, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:15:37 +0900 Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Does it seem like it is time for RESTRICT=interactive. Such ebuilds
> > | would refuse to emerge if stdout is not a tty. If only there was
> > | use-flag based RESTRICT...
> >
> > No, because then that would encourage even more people to abuse the
> > system and write incorrect ebuilds.
>
> IMHO this could be enforced by some policy ("don't use
> RESTRICT=interactive unless you really need it and some_group has given
> you the ok")...Ebuilds are non-interactive compile/install... that's the design, and intention of them. I don't like opening the possibility for people to use it, mainly due to the fact A) give me an instance when it's required for compile B) interactive build scripts are idiotic (writing expect scripts for a tinderbox setup is proof enough of this) C) 15 hour upgrade/build, hanging an hour into it is going to be an ass biter. Yes, we can slap some warning into the UI tools for C, but people will still miss it on occasion, and it'll piss them off something fierce (just the same as a single failure in building results in emerge stopping). It's a bad idea from where I sit. ~harring
pgpl89BfLrpEf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
