From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-44887-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Q1fvG-0006X5-FO
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:17:30 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 65BBF1C0AA;
Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127F21C09F
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:16:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by eyh5 with SMTP id 5so2052669eyh.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=DFTfHuhZlz98dBZiN9MqZ5P9WZnIeuTQ/nYh89YkBaU=;
b=PPpOzhXMXUjDQ9Dn2i4K8umxqHDr54rkBQuQNVWL5Wwa4YRNzJrFfVIsEXxym1AhfV
wwYEIW71U/V7zy6z3cQjrkLuLAqjp2P8mEEsquTVJy5jKxQkZ9uGSnL9lGwVuyJmu4IH
Css8bMvIyjhP363moZ01yznPS1YJK5fBPUdZY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
b=WsPj+sZ5qNhqNZmBZIHVUXNIL3B93ekn6bsxU1pQC5u70W/WdM4Dg3QvZeHBR+kHHT
FR0l6bDzijNLbXAbdQtkBCRtgkyQefJEsHeNAkHYFGAj3EEg3SM959Tu0NEBTXzGbrFL
Ql/QRsVJfBABYAz19NiKL7YlGizS26TwO2kh4=
Received: by 10.213.13.206 with SMTP id d14mr1120541eba.133.1300717017192;
Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: vapierfilter@gmail.com
Received: by 10.213.21.142 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D874401.2010301@gentoo.org>
References: <4D7B68D3.5000409@gentoo.org> <4D7D3955.7080006@gentoo.org>
<20110317215944.1fcd0450@athlong2.kevquinn.com> <201103171818.21013.vapier@gentoo.org>
<4D874401.2010301@gentoo.org>
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:16:37 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: yAtjb-A0sGh3DaiD2ngh2GW3jvg
Message-ID: <AANLkTimvmu3hwMQbf9AT7=9=oXvKo7ytLtoOJ0fBmDv8@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] pax-utils.eclass: elog -> einfo?
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 9d208127d86e2c652a2aef084b6b05e0
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:26 AM, "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/17/11 11:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> also, this code is run at the pkg_* stage, so it's not the normal src ho=
st
>> feature detection. =C2=A0and we're talking about minor output behavior.
>
> Is calling pax-mark in src_compile a misuse then? At least one ebuild I
> maintain does that (and at least in one case it'd have to be either in
> src_compile or src_test because the test binary has to be pax-mark-ed).
because the PaX markings live in the ELF itself, calling in src_* is
valid. i might even propose that this should be done only in src_*
steps and not the pkg_* steps. the less crap needed to execute at
pkg_* time the better.
> By the way, what do you think about using the "hardened" USE flag to
> control the elog behavior, and forcing it on the hardened profile? In my
> opinion it's a bit hacky.
not worth the time
> Would it make more sense to scan all installed files in pkg_postinst for
> pax-mark-ed files, and then elog something?
that'd work for me, and would make the output much more concise
-mike