On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:36:18 +0100 Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Userpriv I've seen the funny idea to check if UID=0 and such.
Yes, and that 'funny idea' has the added advantage of working even if userpriv is in FEATURES but not actually enabled (yes, that can happen). > > > To quote: > > > "FEATURES is a portage specific package manager configuration > > > variable not specified in PMS and cannot reliably be used in > > > ebuilds or eclasses." > > > > Makes sense to me atm. > > Makes no sense to me, but then I seem to be special :) PMS doesn't document user configuration. If PMS did document user configuration, it would mean that user configuration file formats couldn't arbitrarily be changed between package manager versions as they are now. If FEATURES were specified by PMS, Portage wouldn't be able to change the meaning of its entries without careful EAPI controls. So far as I'm aware, no-one is in favour of introducing such a restriction. There are easy alternatives available, and unlike checking FEATURES, those alternatives actually work. > And all my attempts to get it fixed have been deflected, so I'll keep > ridiculing it until it stops being a failwhale. Patrick, perhaps you would find your efforts more fruitful were you to respond to reviews of your patches by fixing the issues raised, instead of using every available opportunity you can find to take pot-shots at PMS, close off legitimate bugs as INVALID and generally attempt to make life as hard as possible for those for whom PMS matters most. Of the small number of patches that have ended up being rejected from PMS, all but one have been yours, and the one that wasn't was because the author had mistranslated a phrase. I'd appreciate it if you would stop to consider why this is the case. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
