From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EDCpm-0005TV-67 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:12:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j88383UU028125; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 03:08:03 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8836IoZ014851 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 03:06:18 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EDCnS-0006NN-IO for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:09:54 +0000 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:10:06 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage Message-ID: <20050908031006.GA18961@nightcrawler> References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/04w6evG8XlLl3ft" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 78737268-59c8-4c18-83a5-444831cbee6f X-Archives-Hash: 46111c5aa418888022154cb80d590d28 --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Icky on the html email :P On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:45:16PM -0700, m h wrote: > Hello- > I'm investigating the similarities between portage and openpkg. More > specifically I was wondering if it is possible to take portage and > install in on top of an existing linux installation in its own sandbox s/sandbox/prefix/ This is what fink does, and what gentoo-osx is moving towards. > (similar to what openpkg does). I've done some googling and found the > documentation about the gentoo sandbox > ([1]http://bugday.gentoo.org/sandbox.html), but this seems to be a > tool for checking that ebuilds behave correctly. Moreso protection, then ensuring they behave correctly; if they do=20 something they shouldn't they get blocked from what they're=20 attempting. It's an active tool, rather then a 'check' of the ebuild=20 (that and it's limited to linux, no *bsd implementations). Akin to depriving, although depriving is more effective- one can=20 sidestep the sandbox, can't sidestep being de-prived aside from priv=20 escalation. > I've read through > the developer documentation and didn't find anything there. Google > hasn't necessarily been very useful either.... > So, is it possible to sandbox a portage installation on top of say a > debian or fedora install? If so, can anyone point me in the right > direction? With current ebuilds, nope. There's no global prefix offset in the=20 code for it (root is merge offset, not runtime prefix offset). > Do any of the devs out here have experience with openpkg? Pretty much an extension of rpm spec's, afaik. Beyond that? Heh, nope :) ~harring --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDH6uOvdBxRoA3VU0RAkfIAJ0VH/PdiomDK/Sswe+xT0Bo7sPrCQCeJFQ4 1X08JKZ0HWS7FIijAdggWVc= =gIWp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list