Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 22:50 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Christian Seiler (christ...@iwakd.de):
> > > This patch introduces the --clear-env and --keep-env options for
> > > lxc-attach, that allows the user to specify whether the environment
> > > should be passed on inside the container or not.
> > >
> > > This is to be expanded upon in later versions, this patch only
> > > introduces the most basic functionality.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Seiler <christ...@iwakd.de>
>
> > Acked-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com>
>
> > but,
>
> Below...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > -int lxc_attach_set_environment()
> > > +int lxc_attach_set_environment(enum lxc_attach_env_policy_t policy,
> > > char** extra_env, char** extra_keep)
> > > {
> > > - if (clearenv()) {
> > > - SYSERROR("failed to clear environment");
> > > - /* don't error out though */
> > > + /* TODO: implement extra_env, extra_keep
> > > + * Rationale:
> > > + * - extra_env is an array of strings of the form
> > > + * "VAR=VALUE", which are to be set (after clearing or not,
> > > + * depending on the value of the policy variable)
> > > + * - extra_keep is an array of strings of the form
> > > + * "VAR", which are extra environment variables to be kept
> > > + * around after clearing (if that is done, otherwise, the
> > > + * remain anyway)
> > > + */
> > > + (void) extra_env;
> > > + (void) extra_keep;
>
> > Sorry, what are these?
>
> If I may be so bold...
>
> Recurse back to some of the discussions several of us (including you and
> me, both) have had over the last couple of months. This whole thing
> about clearing the environment included discussions about why we would
> want to convey environment variables and how it would be configured and
> under what circumstances (lxc-start, lxc-execute, lxc-attach).
>
> IMHO, It looks like these are intended to be environment variables to be
> flagged to keep (not to be cleared but to be copied over from the
> calling environment) and variables to be added (fixed configured
> variables, not in the calling environment but intended to be present in
> the resulting environment). I can see a rational for both of them and I
> recall them coming up in those past discussions.
>
> He probably didn't need to define them until he was ready to implement
> them but I see where it's going and I could agree with it even where I
> don't need it myself.
Right I'm not objecting to the arguments being passed, but I'm wondering
why he specifically has:
> > > + (void) extra_env;
> > > + (void) extra_keep;
in the function there.
-serge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Own the Future-Intel® Level Up Game Demo Contest 2013
Rise to greatness in Intel's independent game demo contest.
Compete for recognition, cash, and the chance to get your game
on Steam. $5K grand prize plus 10 genre and skill prizes.
Submit your demo by 6/6/13. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel_levelupd2d
_______________________________________________
Lxc-devel mailing list
Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
