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 1E7FJS-0000wj-LY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:38:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7MGabKm031681; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:36:37 GMT Received: from www.opersys.com (opersys.com [64.40.108.71]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7MGaZp4004260 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:36:36 GMT Received: from [192.168.172.55] (modemcable172.15-70-69.static.videotron.ca [69.70.15.172]) by www.opersys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14932 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:12:05 -0700 Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Environment Whitelisting From: Kristian Benoit To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <43095761.3080609@gmail.com> References: <4308E349.8010107@egr.msu.edu> <20050822035207.GA26017@phaenix.haell.com> <43095761.3080609@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:29:59 -0400 Message-Id: <1124728200.6502.37.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7ce3c989-7e3b-4405-95e1-bc093e78f7c5 X-Archives-Hash: 8a71bf1cde4a2024d5ddae2ff58110d8 On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 21:41 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > Yeah, I agree that a build that is fragile with regard to environment > variables could be an upstream issue. The advantage of > white/black/override list portage feature is that it would provide a > way to work around these kinds of problems (until they are fixed > upstream). Another point of view could be that leaving the environment as is would help providing bugs to the upstream. But I must agree with you that having it optional would probably be the best thing. I think the fourth solution would be nice if we have a /etc/portage/package.env so that if one need to specify an non portage environment variable, it could be specified on a per packge basis. It could also be a /etc/portage/package.env.d that contain a per-package script that set-up the environment for that package. The script coud be called with the calling environment set a variable name "keep_variables" to a list of the variables that should be kept for that particuliar package. The calling environment could also specify a keep_variables varible so that we keep those variable in build environment. Kristian -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list