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 1E7MB2-0000UM-NW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:58:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7MNuiiV002753; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:56:44 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 j7MNuh49026353 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:56:43 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 1E7MAT-0002u9-Nz for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:57:29 +0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:56:19 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Environment Whitelisting Message-ID: <20050822235619.GY10816@nightcrawler> References: <4308E349.8010107@egr.msu.edu> <20050822233323.276ad887@andy.genone.homeip.net> <20050822214059.GU10816@nightcrawler> <200508230828.10810.jstubbs@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+HmK7y6O+lKZIGkr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508230828.10810.jstubbs@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: b8aac5d1-35f8-4973-a1d3-a38a8509dcc2 X-Archives-Hash: 07d69a1e424d079ad4d8d33a79799fbd --+HmK7y6O+lKZIGkr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:28:08AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Tuesday 23 August 2005 06:40, Brian Harring wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:33:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > Theoretical discussions about this are pointless IMO without > > > numbers/facts to back things up. > > > > I'd posit theroetical discussions about this are pointless without > > getting ebuild dev's to give a yay/nay on whether they want it or not; > > not much for trying to force it down their throats if they don't want > > it (more work, essentially). >=20 > I don't really see what it has to do with ebuild devs... We're talking ab= out=20 > the user's environment leaking into the portage build environment, no?=20 > Environment vars used by ebuilds can/should be set by users in a portage= =20 > configuration file rather than being added to the environment. The only= =20 > issue i see here is user customizations - fex, a hypothetical colorgcc th= at=20 > gets its config info from the env. Ixnaying user env leaking in will lead to bugs where ebuilds *allow*=20 for that, along with pissed off ebuild devs if they've not been made=20 aware of it oncoming. Hell, they may not even agree on the deterministic bit re: env; this=20 would explicitly block developers from fooling with autotool vars=20 (WANT_AUTOMAKE fex) for testing without mangling the ebuild. So yeah, I'm trying to ensure we're not screamed at for deploying what=20 (imo) is a good change, but may piss people off if it's not stated up=20 front (akin to glep 33). ~harring --+HmK7y6O+lKZIGkr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDCmYjvdBxRoA3VU0RAndqAKCJJSMEqcJNgnhAOani7krzR/a8bACg0zL1 fvD6h2Y5IUOYJLtNUy6cJtk= =71VG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+HmK7y6O+lKZIGkr-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list