On Friday 23 September 2005 02:57 am, Rumen Yotov wrote:
> Still another issue, is there a way to use an "epatch" after which it's
> known you'll have an error, which later is fixed by another patch.
no, and that behavior will probably never be added to epatch
> IMHO it's easier just to fix the p
On Thursday 22 September 2005 08:47 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> enewuser & friends can be made to
> unmask those locations on demand, thus making the transition painless.
enew{user,group} already disable/reenable sandbox if required
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 23 September 2005 02:47, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Disclamer: Exercise great caution with the following link. Only read
> one line at a time or you may be overwhelmed. Take a break every 10
> lines or so. Have a sedative handy.
>
> [1]
> http://briandowney.net/?page=linux§ion=gentooebuilds
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:47:17 +0900
Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should pkg_setup() be run in a sandbox?
>
> The current reasons to not have it sandboxed include:
>
> - ebuilds need to add users
> - ... (any others?)
>
> So, would it make sense to sandbox pkg_setup() and only unm
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 09:47:17AM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Should pkg_setup() be run in a sandbox?
>
> The current reasons to not have it sandboxed include:
>
> - ebuilds need to add users
> - ... (any others?)
>
> So, would it make sense to sandbox pkg_setup() and only unmask the
> pass
Should pkg_setup() be run in a sandbox?
The current reasons to not have it sandboxed include:
- ebuilds need to add users
- ... (any others?)
So, would it make sense to sandbox pkg_setup() and only unmask the
passwd files needed for adding users? enewuser & friends can be made to
unmask those lo
