* [gentoo-dev] deprecation of SANDBOX_DISABLED
@ 2005-09-28 8:05 Brian Harring
2005-10-04 4:12 ` Martin Schlemmer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Brian Harring @ 2005-09-28 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]
Hola.
Subject says it all; SANDBOX_DISABLED functions as (essentially)
RESTRICT="sandbox", except sandbox is left on for pkg_setup .
This is pretty much redundant, considering it's usage. People stick
it in the global scope; if you _must_ turn off the sandbox for a
specific phase, use SANDBOX_ON=0/1 instead. If you need to disable
sandbox across the board, restrict="sandbox" is your friend.
Since there are still ebuilds in the tree that would be schmooked by
it, it's not going to hit in the coming version, but I'd expect it to
be dead next version after unless people have a really good reason why
it should live on.
So... thoughts? Yes it's minor, but it's a matter of cleaning
up/simplifying portage code, and removing redundancy.
~harring
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] deprecation of SANDBOX_DISABLED
2005-09-28 8:05 [gentoo-dev] deprecation of SANDBOX_DISABLED Brian Harring
@ 2005-10-04 4:12 ` Martin Schlemmer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Martin Schlemmer @ 2005-10-04 4:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 910 bytes --]
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 03:05 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> Hola.
>
> Subject says it all; SANDBOX_DISABLED functions as (essentially)
> RESTRICT="sandbox", except sandbox is left on for pkg_setup .
>
> This is pretty much redundant, considering it's usage. People stick
> it in the global scope; if you _must_ turn off the sandbox for a
> specific phase, use SANDBOX_ON=0/1 instead. If you need to disable
> sandbox across the board, restrict="sandbox" is your friend.
>
> Since there are still ebuilds in the tree that would be schmooked by
> it, it's not going to hit in the coming version, but I'd expect it to
> be dead next version after unless people have a really good reason why
> it should live on.
>
> So... thoughts? Yes it's minor, but it's a matter of cleaning
> up/simplifying portage code, and removing redundancy.
>
Sounds sane.
--
Martin Schlemmer
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-10-04 4:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-09-28 8:05 [gentoo-dev] deprecation of SANDBOX_DISABLED Brian Harring
2005-10-04 4:12 ` Martin Schlemmer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox