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 1E7WMs-0006Rq-6w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:50:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7NAnVat032287; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:49:31 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 j7NAnUI9025476 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:49:31 GMT Received: from zg040066.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([222.2.40.66] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1E7WMG-0000bR-My for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:50:21 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 974BC102DE9; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:50:54 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Environment Whitelisting Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:50:52 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.90 References: <4308E349.8010107@egr.msu.edu> <200508230828.10810.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20050822235619.GY10816@nightcrawler> In-Reply-To: <20050822235619.GY10816@nightcrawler> 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; boundary="nextPart10424654.Axh65Qx84z"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200508231950.54397.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c213991f-0f6f-4952-a9a2-f57a7d7c08d5 X-Archives-Hash: 578e352258c163ec76102d20aef42a62 --nextPart10424654.Axh65Qx84z Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 23 August 2005 08:56, Brian Harring wrote: > 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). > > > > I don't really see what it has to do with ebuild devs... We're talking > > about the user's environment leaking into the portage build > > environment, no? Environment vars used by ebuilds can/should be set by > > users in a portage configuration file rather than being added to the > > environment. The only issue i see here is user customizations - fex, a > > hypothetical colorgcc that gets its config info from the env. > > Ixnaying user env leaking in will lead to bugs where ebuilds *allow* > for that, along with pissed off ebuild devs if they've not been made > aware of it oncoming. > > Hell, they may not even agree on the deterministic bit re: env; this > would explicitly block developers from fooling with autotool vars > (WANT_AUTOMAKE fex) for testing without mangling the ebuild. > > So yeah, I'm trying to ensure we're not screamed at for deploying what > (imo) is a good change, but may piss people off if it's not stated up > front (akin to glep 33). I think possibly our terminology is getting confused though.. Let's label=20 stuff. I'll call the "build environment" (BE) that which an ebuild executes= =20 in, and the "calling environment" (CE) that which emerge (or whatever tool)= =20 was ran from. I see your point about the CE getting passed down to the BE for dev=20 purposes. However, I don't see why stuff in the CE should be passed down to= =20 the BE in general. Aren't we trying to move away from users configuring=20 stuff in the CE? How's about leaving the CE out of variable cascading=20 altogether by default and just make it an option feature? :) With regards to white/blacklisting, I don't mind so much either way if the= =20 CE is not passed by default. However, I think that all portage-specific=20 variables (such as FEATURES or PORTDIR) should not get passed down unless=20 they really should be. I guess that sounds like blacklisting. =2D-=20 Jason Stubbs --nextPart10424654.Axh65Qx84z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDCv+OxvWNPsk/ZP4RAjEKAKCeVwxUzjzbeHGEFFObZlqa5hqnywCgpQQb Sd1SNb50VV5AEV7kcykZbjY= =OgqJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart10424654.Axh65Qx84z-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list