Roland Mainz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> ----
>
> [CC:'ing David.Marker at sun.com - the OS/Net gatekeeper for the issue
> below...]
>
> Mike.Sullivan at sun.com wrote:
>> (this reply is a bit faked-up because I was going to let
>> others look then I got worried since I just pushed
>> 88 out today :)
>
> Erm... I don't understand why this reply is "faked" then... ?!
Faked because it wasn't a real reply to your mail, since I had
deleted that, so I wasn't sure it would show up as a real reply.
>
> ... which leads to a question: Shouldn't "bldenv"&co. clear the
> environment except those env variables which are "known to be good" ?
they try, though they have evolved by removing those known to be bad
rather than just leaving those known to be good. The problem is that
those variables change over time as things get integrated, and is
particularly bad in sfw where we don't control most of the Makefiles.
So things that we think of as 'good' today might not be 'good' tomorrow.
> ... question to the gatekeepers: Should I file a RFE to let "bldenv"&co.
> clear the environment ? I would add to new options: --acceptenvvars and
> --rejectenvvars which accept patterns (shell patter, grep pattern, egrep
> pattern, fgrep pattern or perl pattern) to filter out environment
> variables by name. Any variable name which does _not_ match the pattern
> for "acceptenvvars" will be removed and any variable name which matches
> the pattern for "rejectenvvars" will be removed, too (e.g. a traditional
> accept/reject filter chain).
there is already a bug for making nightly start off with a clean
environment, you should probably just go fix that and then we
never have to worry again.
I don't really see a need to let people selectively add/subtract
variables as that just looks like more ways to make builds differ
or break. And if you really need to add variables to the environment
you can already add them to the env file.
> I already have a contribution for "bldenv" queued (CR #6600149
> ("bldenv_cleanup")) and could easily integrate the functionality into
> it... "nightly" would follow with a seperate CR# and putback once we
> have positive feedback from that putback that the change worked...
actually no - you need to make sure the change works before you
putback. And you should make changes to nightly/bldenv together
rather than separately unless they're really things that only
affect one or the other.
Mike
