> On 18 Dec 2022, at 10:19, Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 17.12.22 06:42, Sam James wrote: >>> On 15 Dec 2022, at 19:22, Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> I personally would prefer portage simply adjusting its behavior based on >>> the owner of the repository. That is, if it's the 'portage' user then >>> assume full control, and if it is a different user, then fall back to a >>> preserving, conservative mode of operation. Unfortunately, for me, this >>> idea was received skeptically at best in a recent discussion in >>> #gentoo-portage. >> This wouldn't work for Prefix and also FEATURES="-usersync". > > Simply do not apply the approach on Prefix. That should be fine. I am not > sure how usersync being disabled (or enabled) plays a role here, though. >
The owner of the repository and its permissions will be affected by the permissions used by Portage to sync. > I believe something like this would make everyone happy: > > if volatile_explicitly_configured: > volatile = explicitly_configured_volatile_value > else if prefix > volatile = false > else if Path(repo_dir).user != (root|portage) # Or, if uid >= 1000 > volatile = true > else > volatile = false > > Assuming that the "if target repo is not shallow, then no shallow clone > (unless explicitly requested)" check is only applied if volatile=true, then > you even have the desired effect that users get their repo automatically > converted to shallow ones. Which makes you happy. And the above logic would > make me happy, since the "if Path(repo_dir).uid >= 1000" branch would be > taken for me. > Feel free to suggest that on the PR, it sounds like a decent compromise, if a bit automagic - but it wouldn't be the first or last case of that in Portage.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
