[gentoo-dev] Re: Adding -l (--ignore-whitespace) to EPATCH_COMMON_OPTS

2014-05-15 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 15 May 2014 07:21:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 14 May 2014, Ryan Hill wrote: > > > I'm a lazy bum and I'm tired of rebasing patches that fail due to > > whitespace. Is this doable or would it make the universe explode? > > Please don't. There are languages where whites

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Alec Warner
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: > > On Thu, 15 May 2014 14:44:58 -0400 > > Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:15:32 + > >> > ha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014 14:44:58 -0400 > Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:15:32 + >> > hasufell wrote: >> >> Ciaran McCreesh: >> >> > Sandboxing isn't about sec

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 15 May 2014 14:44:58 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: > > On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:15:32 + > > hasufell wrote: > >> Ciaran McCreesh: > >> > Sandboxing isn't about security. > >> > > >> > >> Sure it is. > > > > Then where do the bug r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:15:32 + > hasufell wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh: >> > Sandboxing isn't about security. >> > >> >> Sure it is. > > Then where do the bug reports for all the "security violations" > possible with sandbox go? > There

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:35:41 +0200 "Thomas D." wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Sandboxing isn't about security. It's about catching mistakes. > > From Wikipedia > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28computer_security%29): > > In computer security, a sandbox is a security mechanism for >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Thomas D.
Hi, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Sandboxing isn't about security. It's about catching mistakes. >From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28computer_security%29): > In computer security, a sandbox is a security mechanism for > separating running programs. It is often used to execute unt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:15:32 + hasufell wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh: > > Sandboxing isn't about security. > > > > Sure it is. Then where do the bug reports for all the "security violations" possible with sandbox go? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread hasufell
Ciaran McCreesh: > > Sandboxing isn't about security. > Sure it is.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Luis Ressel
On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:48:24 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Sandboxing isn't about security. It's about catching mistakes. Ciaran has a point here. Thomas, you assumed that network-sandbox is the only thing stopping an ebuild from accessing local services or the internet. However, even with netw

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:12:30 +0200 "Thomas D." wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: > > Probably best to make FEATURES=distcc disable network-sandbox > > then. People enabling it are explicitly saying they want to access > > the network. > > Do you really think it is a good behavior to automatically disable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Alec Warner
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Thomas D. wrote: > Hi, > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > Probably best to make FEATURES=distcc disable network-sandbox > > then. People enabling it are explicitly saying they want to access > > the network. > > Do you really think it is a good behavior to automatically dis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: enabling ipc-sandbox & network-sandbox by default

2014-05-15 Thread Thomas D.
Hi, Ryan Hill wrote: > Probably best to make FEATURES=distcc disable network-sandbox > then. People enabling it are explicitly saying they want to access > the network. Do you really think it is a good behavior to automatically disable something you can call a "security feature"? At least there s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

2014-05-15 Thread hasufell
It's called keeping status quo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages looking for new maintainers.

2014-05-15 Thread Sergey Popov
08.05.2014 08:07, Alex Alexander пишет: > x11-misc/whaw Took this one, really neat and simple tool! -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The gx86-multilib project needs your help! (+ roadmap reminder)

2014-05-15 Thread Pacho Ramos
El mar, 13-05-2014 a las 15:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: > On 13/05/14 03:19 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El dom, 11-05-2014 a las 20:56 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: [...] > >> 4. whenever possible, depend on the specific subslot that is > >> known to provide SONAME equal to the required by