On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 21:01 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Wednesday 10 January 2007 19:03, Jakub Moc wrote: > > Mike Frysinger napsal(a): > > > On Wednesday 10 January 2007 09:34, Jakub Moc wrote: > > >> Huh? I was referring to this link [1] on Bug 161045 (which presumably > > >> started this whole debate) > > > > > > so you're replying to a non-gentoo-dev thread on a gentoo-dev thread when > > > the threads arent even closely related ? how does that make sense ? > > > > > > this thread has nothing to do with commercial packages > > > > No, it does not. And RESTRICT=sandbox is still completely unneeded, > > commercial packages or not... We don't need to introduce a special > > RESTRICT because of two borked packages in the tree and we should not > > introduce any more packages borked in a similar way into the tree. > > I agree. The restrict should only be even considered when it is clear that > the > sandbox is indeed flawed by concept and cannot be fixed.
That's fine, but it still doesn't remove the usefulness of an ACCEPT_RESTRICT for some other variables. Think of it this way... a user *chose* to add a FEATURE. We have a package that doesn't work with that FEATURE. Currently, we "tell" the user they're wrong and do it our way, no matter what. There's no mechanism for the user to say "Always do what I say. I'd rather not install the package if it doesn't work with $FEATURE." which could be solved with ACCEPT_RESTRICT. It gives the power back to the user, not the ebuild writer. -- 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
