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 1E747R-0000bI-W3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:41:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7M4dvoV013845; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:39:57 GMT Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.205]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7M4dt9R029328 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:39:56 GMT Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so917715rng for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:40:33 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NaP+BzTnfjPkl+FAjY4vR5yuah9HH+XO2qLrUyxCaKaz4QdV421vDFwwwvBo1jgYnJh0p00tay90FwKptyAV4kiJWb1jYuzTZP3OJfGAziic9lrFSmA5W4IpxTM8VF/RG/WqFTTyBZl35dQ3AqtocciHoNzsMKzpvuA4Hqpzj2Y= Received: by 10.38.76.59 with SMTP id y59mr602626rna; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.2? ([68.101.114.219]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 79sm693050rna.2005.08.21.21.40.32; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <43095761.3080609@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:41:05 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050804) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Environment Whitelisting References: <4308E349.8010107@egr.msu.edu> <20050822035207.GA26017@phaenix.haell.com> In-Reply-To: <20050822035207.GA26017@phaenix.haell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: fe76eb0c-ed75-4d11-8037-5839d203fc1f X-Archives-Hash: 22a1a63d4740eabcf7bc3880b74ce549 Drake Wyrm wrote: > > I much prefer option 1. It's more work for the maintainers, but breakage > from the environment should be fixed in the Makefile and pushed > upstream. > 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). In #gentoo-portage Alec pointed out that a blacklist would not guarantee a clean build environment to the extent that a whitelist would. Despite this, I was not convinced that a whitelist is necessary and worth the implementation/maintenance costs. To support this, I pointed out that portage seems to work well currently, without a whitelist. Based on this information, I would suggest that the lists, if they get implemented, should exist at both global and per-ebuild levels, and should be optional (not necessarily required). One thing I like about black/override lists (as opposed to whitelists) is that they would serve to document specifically which environment variable(s) a specific build is fragile with regard to. Zac -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list